Biswarup Biswas v. The State Of West Bengal

20.02.2025 sdas Rejected C.R.M. (A) No. 586 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No. 30 of 2025 dated 14.01.2025 under Sections 316(2)/316(5)/336(3)/337/61(2) of the BNS.

And In Re : Biswarup Biswas ...... petitioner Mr. Navanil De Mr. Srijan Ghosh .....for the petitioner Mr. Randeb Sengupta Ms. Poulami Bose ..... for the State 1.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits he is the sub-inspector of schools (Madrasah Education). He is no way connected with the issuance of fake memo which was placed by the headmaster of Madrasah concerned before the District Officer, Minority Affairs, for appointment of teachers. It is also submitted seized memorandum relates to construction of a building and not for appointment of teachers. He prays for anticipatory bail.

2.

Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

3.

We have considered the materials on record. One Sk.

Aksar Ahammed, headmaster of Mukhya Shiksha Samprasarak, Narghat Madrasah Siksha Kendra concerned

submitted a memo proposing appointment of three persons before the District Officer, Minority Affairs. Memo which appeared to be fake. During investigation said candidates were interrogated and it came to light they had paid money to the petitioner. Petitioner strenuously argued that the seized memo relates to construction of building and not for appointment of teachers. This is of little consequence. Memo number used in the fake document relates to a genuine document viz. permission for construction of building by the District Officer, Minority Affairs. The said memo number was dishonestly affixed to the fake document which was utilized for illegal appointment. Involvement of the petitioner in the said activity is corroborated through money trail flowing to his account. 4.

Under such circumstances we are of the opinion custodial interrogation for unraveling ramification of the conspiracy relating to illegal appointment to public posts is necessary and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)