19.06.2026 Sl. No.12 NB CRM (A) 1320 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bagnan PS Case No.217/2026 dated 17.04.2026 under Sections 127(2)/76/79/351(2)/64/62 of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Manoj Bera … petitioner Mr. Debnath Ganguly, Mr. Sudipta Bera, Mr. Supriyo Dutta. …for the petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee. …for the State. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is surprising that when the de facto complainant allegedly came to know about the earlier incident, she did not make any complaint before the police. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statement of the FIR, the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate and the statements of other witnesses including immediate post occurrence witnesses as also the medico legal examination. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 2 The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)

19.06.2026 Sl. No.12 NB CRM (A) 1320 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bagnan PS Case No.217/2026 dated 17.04.2026 under Sections 127(2)/76/79/351(2)/64/62 of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Manoj Bera … petitioner Mr. Debnath Ganguly, Mr. Sudipta Bera, Mr. Supriyo Dutta. …for the petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee. …for the State. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is surprising that when the de facto complainant allegedly came to know about the earlier incident, she did not make any complaint before the police. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statement of the FIR, the statement of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate and the statements of other witnesses including immediate post occurrence witnesses as also the medico legal examination. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 2 The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)