Rajiv Ranjan Kumar v. State Of West Bengal

24.11.2025 Court No.35.

D/L. 19.

Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 2422 of 2025 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Bidhannagar East Police Station Case No. 72 of 2025 dated 14.09.2025 under Sections 318(4)/338/340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (adding Sections 111(4)/111(6)/316(2)/336(2)/337(1) of the BNS);

And In the matter of : Rajiv Ranjan Kumar ......Petitioner.

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghose Mr. Aditya Tiwary Ms. Priyanka Sarkar ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajdeep Banerjee Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee ....for the Defacto Complainant.

Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP Ms. Puja Goswami ......for the State.

Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 48 days. It has been further brought to the notice of this Court that there has been subsequent changes and the petitioner has entered into an agreement for settlement with Payel Chatterjee who is alleged to be the victim from whom the petitioner received money.

Learned advocate appearing for the defacto complainant submits that the case was registered on the basis of the information furnished by the defacto complainant and it has been alleged that the petitioner is having many other cases against him which is of similar nature.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the investigation of the case is in progress.

Learned advocate for the State has also drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that subsequently Section 111(4) of the BNS has been added so far as the present petitioner is concerned. The signatures which are alleged to be forged have been sent to QDEB for examination. Having considered that the investigation of the case is proceeding, at this stage, the release of the petitioner may jeopardize the investigation.

Consequently, the prayer for bail of the petitioner at this stage is refused.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 2422 of 2025 is 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.)