Ajit Kumar Das v. State Of West Bengal

25/02/2026 D/L - 10 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 3980 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Phoolbagan P.S case no. 67 of 2025 dated 28/4/2025 under sections 318(4)/316(2)/338/336(3)/340(2)/351(3)/61(2) of the BNS.

In the matter of: Ajit Kumar Das

...Petitioner.

Ms. Priya Chakraborty ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Samrat Choudhury Mr. K. Naskar ...for the de-facto complainant.

Ms. Subhasree Patel Ms. Puja Goswami ...for the State.

1. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner was a Director of different companies. He got introduced to the de-facto complainant in who was working somewhere. After retirement, he invested a sum of Rs. 52 lakhs in some of the petitioner's companies. He got returns of about Rs.2.00 Crores. Yet, he conspired with the others to remove the petitioner as Director from some of the companies by forging signature of the petitioner. The petitioner lodged an FIR. Charge sheet has been submitted. The present de-facto complainant was granted anticipatory bail in 2024 in that case. After all these, a belated FIR was lodged alleging that the petitioner did not pay the returns that were promised.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the charge sheet against his client was submitted not with charges of forgery but only under the charge of cheating. There are other victims of the instant fraud.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State relies on the report and case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, she submits that as per the report a sum of about Rs.1.5 Crores was paid back by the petitioner to the de-facto complainant.

4. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary, that there are case and counter case, that some of the amount was returned to the de-facto complainant and the fact that petitioner has cooperated with the investigation during the pendency of this application, 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.

5. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each 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 further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the I.O once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)