MANICKTALA P.S. CASE No. 93 of 2025 · Calcutta High Court

Mr. Ankan Das Ms. Payel Das … for the petitioner Mr. Krishendu Bhattacharya … Amicus Mr. Animesh Paul … for the de facto complainant Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Prior to lodging of the FIR, on 26.08.2025, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the local police station alleging that the de facto complainant was pressurising him to donate his kidney for her husband. Quite obviously, the petitioner did not agree to the proposition. As a counterblast, a false case of theft from the house was registered against the petitioner. Learned de facto complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned Amicus assisting the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He points to the statements of witnesses. 2 Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that there was a prior complaint lodged by the petitioner against the de facto complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on the further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, shall meet the investigating officer once a week till submission and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)