Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/2833/2025rejected

Nanda Gopal Dey v. State Of West Bengal

2025-11-13Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

AD 7 November 13, 2025 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 2833 of 2025 Reject An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No.1256 of 2023 dated 22.09.2023 under Sections 408/420/409/467/468/469/ 471 of the IPC.

And In the matter of:

Nanda Gopal Dey ... petitioner Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. RajashreeTah Ms. Aishwarya Datta Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty Ms. Sadia Parveen ... for the petitioner Mr. Saryati Datta Ms. Rajnandini Das ... for the State Mr. Dipanjan Dutt Mr. Arka Chandra Roy ... for the de facto complainant Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the cashier of a cooperative society. The secretary and other persons in the management of the cooperative society were very influential persons. They used to embezzle and misuse funds of the society by taking up money upon issuing vouchers. The petitioner filed an FIR against them in this regard. As a counter-blast, the present FIR has been registered. There is an audit report, which does not implicate the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Reliance is placed on the

audit report, especially at paragraphs 14 and 15. From the audit report it appears that the petitioner was in charge of the cash. Although the accounts showed that there would be a balance of Rs.70 Lakhs and odd, physical verification found the sum to be only about Rs.5.9 Lakhs and odd. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and relies on the two case diaries. A departmental proceeding has been initiated. The petitioner has been suspended from his service. The FIR lodged by the petitioner was actually a counter-blast against the notices issued by the authority of the cooperative society. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diaries including the audit report and the statements of witnesses, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Personal appearance of the investigating officer is noted and is dispensed with.

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)