Rajiv Ranjan v. State Of West Bengal
16/02/2026 D/L - 24 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 142 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Bidhannagar North P.S case no. 4 of 2026 dated 5/1/2026 under sections 316(2)/318(4) of the BNS.
In the matter of: Rajiv Ranjan Kumar
...Petitioner.
Mr. Rajdeep Majumder Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya Mr. Aditya Rajan Tiwari ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ...for the State.
1. Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The allegations are of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner is being hounded by the local police station for a long time with one case or the other. In the present case, the de-facto complainant has alleged that he paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to purchase a flat. Neither was it delivered nor was the money refunded. However, it was suppressed by the defacto complainant in the FIR that between 2011 and 2025, the de-facto complainant had invested a sum of Rs.1.01 Crores in the business of the petitioner and the petitioner had repaid him Rs.1.06 Crores in this regard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the case diary and the report. He submits that there are criminal
antecedents against the petitioner. However, so far as the present de-facto complainant is concerned, it has come to light that the de-facto complainant received a sum of Rs. 1.03 Crores from the petitioner, although his total transactions exceeded such sums.
The earlier transactions between the private parties had happened by 2012. The present activity was of 2024.
4. Considering the above, the fact that the there was a continuous commercial relationship between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner for some time, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that bulk of the relevant documents have already been collected by the Investigating Officer, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each 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 further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the I.O once a week till submission of report in final form.
6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)