← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/131/2026rejected

Sk Rahul v. State Of West Bengal

2026-03-30Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

30.03.2026 Sl. No.11 NB CRM (A) 131 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 Bidhannagar Cyber PS vide FIRCase No.131/2022 dated 25.08.2022 under Sections 419/420/467/469/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of: Sk Rahul ... petitioner Mr. Rakesh Singh.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Joydeep Roy, Ms. Rituporna Saha.

..for the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not named in the FIR. It was only after submission of the charge sheet in the year 2023 that he came to know that there was a case against him. A similarly circumstanced co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 21.08.2023. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is a part of a racket which used to run fake call centres. They used to impersonate themselves as employees of a finance company and used to offer loans to customers and thereafter, take money through RTGS. So far as the co-accused who was granted anticipatory bail is concerned, she had approached the Court promptly in 2023 and she was a lady.

It appears that the prime allegation against the petitioner is that the racket was being run from a place, which had been taken on lease by the petitioner.

Considering the above, the other incriminating materials available in the case diary and the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court long after initiation of the proceedings and submission of charge sheet (in the year 2023), I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 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.)