George Clayton Dixon And ANR. v. State Of West Bengal

29.01.2026 Serial no. 37 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 57 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with GR(S) Case No. 875 of 2025 corresponding to Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 147/25 dated 14.09.2025 u/s 336(3)/338/339/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. -AndIn the matter of : George Clayton Dixon & Anr. ... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr Adv.

Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Raja Mantosh Ms. S. Das Mr. Poulam Dey Mr. B. K. Singh ... for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Madhushudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Rajes Jana ... for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Supriya Chatterjee Mr. Arindam Chatterjee ... for the defacto-complainant(s) Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for about 67 days and have been detained because of the materials which were produced before the learned Civil court relating to forged death certificates to render the decree in-operative. Mr.

Sur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State submits that the petitioners are part of a big racket which is still operating and the principal accused who is associated with this case is not till traceable.

The allegations against the petitioners are that they have forged about 4000 death certificates/birth certificates. On instruction, Mr. Sur again submits that although the petitioners are part of a big racket but there are no antecedents against them.

Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant submits that there is involvement of Bangladeshi nationals. Learned advocate also submits that there are cases against the present petitioners at the Pollution Control Board. Learned advocate further states that so far as the issue relating to forgery is concerned, there have been manufactured documents to the prejudice of the defactocomplainant and/or other affected parties and the petitioners are habitual offenders.

This court repeatedly asked whether there are antecedents of the present petitioners; in reply, on instruction, Mr. Sur submits that there are no antecedents. I have considered that the petitioners are in custody and the only purpose for which the State has proposed for their custodial detention is for assessing the veracity of the materials to be collected after the principal accused is arrested with the statement and/or materials collected from the present petitioners.

Having regard to the fact that as to when the principal accused will be arrested and, till then, the

petitioners should be detained in custody in a case which is based on documents, I am of the opinion that the same would not be prudent in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, on any stringent conditions, the petitioners may be released on bail.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is Allowed.

Accordingly, the petitioner viz, George Clayton Dixon and Carol Elixon Dixon shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kolkata.

2) In this case the surety would be of a person within the jurisdiction of learned CJM, Kolkata and the same should be title deed of a property of the person who will furnish bond of local surety.

3) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of KMC without prior permission of the investigating officer of the case and the petitioner no.1 shall meet with the investigating officer of the case once in a week till further orders of this court.

Accordingly, CRM(M) 57 of 2026 is allowed.

Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)