Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/3375/2025rejected

Siddhartha Mukherjee v. State Of West Bengal

2025-12-16Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

16.12.2025 Court No.28 Item No. 23 tbsr Reject CRM (A) 3375 of 2025 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Survey Park P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 under Sections 338/336(3)/340(2)/318(4)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Siddhartha Mukherjee ....Petitioner.

Mr. Mukteswar Maity Ms. Manika Sarkar ....for the petitioner.

Mr. Debasish Roy, ld. PP Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. S. S. Imam .....for the State.

Mr. Sanjit Singh ....for the de facto complainant Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already made payment for the bookings done by the de facto complainant. However, the de facto complainant wanted to cancel the trip due to ongoing war. The principal accused i.e., the owner of the business, was arrested and was thereafter granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The present petitioner is only the husband of the principal accused. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant submits as follows. Before the Sessions Court it was a case of the wife of the petitioner that the present petitioner was the principal accused. There was no case of the de facto complainant trying to cancel the trip. Vouchers were shown as if, payments were made, but

no payments were made. In lieu of cancellation of such trip, some cheques were given which were also dishonoured. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the case diary and points to the communications made with the hotels and the statements of witnesses. Fake documents were relied upon by the petitioners to convince the de facto complainant.

Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case dairy, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Jay Sengupta, J.)