Sintu Senapati v. State Of West Bengal
AD 364 April 1, 2026 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 1023 of 2026 Allowed An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Panskura P.S. Case No.0094 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/351(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
And In the matter of: Sintu Senapati ... petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Supratic Roy Mr. Shuvajit Roy Ms. Mahuya Maity ... for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Samarjit Balial ... for the State Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a member of the opposition political party in the State. He is a contesting candidate in the ensuing assembly elections. The petitioner had earlier been falsely implicated in several cases with allegations, mostly of making defamatory posts in the social media. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in three cases and by the Sessions Court in two cases. In continuation of such mala fide acts to somehow pressurise the petitioner, the present case has been initiated. A writ petition is also pending in this regard. It is alleged that between 2015 to 2022, the petitioner had taken loans to the tune of Rs.91 lakhs and odd through himself and through other associates, but did not repay the same. The purported undertaking of 2022, mentioned in the FIR, is an act of
forgery. The signature is denied. Although it is alleged that money was taken in the year 2022 and the victim was already threatened at gunpoint on 09.12.2025, the present FIR was lodged only on 02.02.2026. Actually, there was a sum of Rs.50,000/- taken by the de facto complainant as loan from the petitioner, which was repaid in the year 2022. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and refers to the statements of witnesses including the statement of the alleged victim recorded before the learned Magistrate. He also refers to the bank transactions showing that on 01.08.2022 there was a sum of Rs.50,000/- sent by the de facto complainant to the petitioner in two tranches.
At this stage, upon instructions, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that if the investigating agency wants a specimen signature of the petitioner, the same can be given in due course and in accordance with law. He would request the investigating agency to arrange for collecting such specimen signature after 23rd April, 2026, the date on which polls are to be held for the petitioner's seat. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that the FIR has been lodged in 2026 with allegation that money was taken by the petitioner between 2015 to 2022, 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.
In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) 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 the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on the further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, shall meet the investigating officer as and when required and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses.
The investigation of the case which is now being carried on by a Sub-Inspector of Police belonging to the CID, shall further be conducted under the direct supervision of the DSP, who is immediately superior to the said officer. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)