← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/3626/2025rejected

Pradip Rajak v. State Of West Bengal

2025-11-26Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

26/11/2025 D/L - 39 Court No.28 S. Kundu Rejected C.R.M.(A) 3626 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Durgapur P.S case no. 477 of 2024 dated 6.9.2024 under sections 126(2)/319(2)/137(2)/140(3)/308(5)/351(2)/61(2)/319(2) /3(5) of the BNS.

In the matter of: Pradip Rajak

...Petitioner.

Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Amal Kr. Banerjee Mr. Taslim Ahamed Mr. Dhiman Banerjee ...for the petitioner.

Ms. Sonali Das Mr. Nahid Ahmed ...for the State.

1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. As would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report, the petitioner is neither alleged to be the prime accused nor was any incriminating material seized from him.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. First, she submits that the co-accused standing on a similar footing was denied the relief of anticipatory bail on 13.5.2025 in CRM (A) 1452 of 2025. The de-facto complainant allegedly invested a sum of Rs.1.01 Crores that was to be returned to him on a particular date. After the money was returned, the petitioner was coming back

taking NH2. His car was intercepted and two persons claiming to be Crime Branch Officers along with others took these away. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the mobile phone tower location shows that he was present at the places where the money was returned and where the petitioner was apprehended.

3. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary, the fact that the investigation is going on and that proclamation has been issued against the petitioner, I do not consider this to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)