Dipa Saha Adhikari v. State Of West Bengal

23.06.2026 Court No.35.

D/L.23.

Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 696 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Raiganj Police Station case no. 1050 of 2025 dated 14.09.2025 under Sections 316(5)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and read with Sections 12/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

And In the matter of : Smt. Dipa Saha Adhikari.

......Petitioner.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv, Mr. Amanul Islam Mr. Arup Sarkar Mr. Sourav Mukherjee Mr. Gourav Roy .....for the Petitioner.

Mr. L. Vishal Kumar Mr. Neel Chakraborty ......for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a lady who has been falsely implicated in the instant case on accusations and having acquaintance with a public servant. She is in custody for eight months, charges have already been framed, prosecution has relied upon number of witnesses in order to prove its case and at this stage there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future. Thus, the petitioner be released on bail on stringent conditions.

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the factum of the case relate to embezzlement of Rs.4.42/- crore from the treasury of the District Magistrate between October, 2023 to September, 2025; the same

was at the behest of one Subrata Chandra. The present petitioner was in relationship with the said accused who was the head clerk cum cashier of the Nazarat Section of the DM Office. There has been recovery of Rs. 0.87/- crore/Rs.87/- lakh which are transactions directly between the said Subrata Chandra and the present petitioner. Majority of the funds have been used and the prosecution in spite of their efforts have seen that the money have been used for purchase of land, gold jewellery etc.

I have taken into account the factum that the petitioner is a lady, however, at the same time Government money has been embezzled by an individual by a person in trust of such money. Petitioner is a beneficiary of such money. The investigating authorities have submitted charge-sheet, charge has already been framed, prosecution must be granted opportunity to proceed with the trial of the case.

Learned Special Court would complete at least one witness in a month so that the trial of the case progresses. At this stage prayer for bail of the petitioner rejected.

Petitioner would be at liberty to renew her prayer for bail at the appropriate stage.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 696 of 2026 dismissed.

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)