Daulat Ram @ Daulat Ram Lilani v. State Of West Bengal
09/01/2026 D/L - 31 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 4262 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Narendrapur P.S case no. 1211 of 2025 dated 7/10/2025 under sections 420/406 of the IPC.
In the matter of: Daulat Ram @ Daulat Ram Lilani
...Petitioner.
Ms. C. Mookherjee Mr. Sachit Talukder Ms. M. Chatterjee ...for the petitioner.
Ms. Sutopa Sanyal Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee Mr. Sourabh Prasad ...for the de-facto complainant.
Mr. Ronobir Roy Choudhury Ms. Rituparna Saha ...for the State.
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. Earlier, similar allegations were levelled against the petitioner, which ultimately resulted in an acquittal. Thereafter, in the year 2013, an agreement was entered into for conveyance of a property as a token of peace. It is alleged that the consideration money for transfer was pegged at Rs.80,000/- and out of the said amount, the de-facto complainant, continued to tender the remaining amount of Rs.7000/-, after paying a sum of Rs.73,000/-. But, the same was not accepted by the petitioner and the property was not conveyed. For this, an FIR was lodged much later in the year 2025. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Any further continuation of
the impugned proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of law.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She submits that the prior acquittal was upon a settlement. The petitioner thereafter, did not fully comply with the terms. The de-facto complainant for all these 12 years, had been pursuing the matter with the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statements of witnesses and the documents relied upon.
4. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that there is a purported delay of about 12 years in lodging the FIR, 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 as and when required.
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.)