Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/4413/2025rejected

Santu Routh v. State Of West Bengal

2026-02-09Hon'Ble Justice Jay Sengupta2 pages

09.02.2026 Court No.28 Item No.18 tbsr Reject CRM (A) 4413 of 2025 CRAN 1 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Amritsar P.S. Cyber Crime, Amritsar City, Punjab FIR No.18 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 under Sections 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 & 66-C, 66-D of IT Act.

And In the matter of: Santu Routh ....Petitioner.

Mr. Gunjan Kumar Singh Mr. Vijay Verma Mr. Prakash Mishra Ms. Rushali Bairagi ...for the petitioner.

Mr. S. S. Imam Ms. Puspita Saha .....for the State.

Status report filed by the Cyber Crime Police Station of the Amritsar Police Commissionerate as filed in Court is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been duped purportedly by the employee of a Bank. He was in dire need of loan. That is why parted with his mobile phone and ATM card for possible transaction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the report and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is a part of a Cyber Crime network. The complainant said that a call came from a number regarding certain internet banking issues. Then the victim was asked to click on a link. The moment he did so, a huge sum of money from his account went

away to another account. It has been found that the money which was taken out had gone to the petitioner's account. Apart from this, the petitioner has failed to indicate that he falls within the scope of the ratio laid down in Priya Indoria's Case (2024) 4 SCC 749, so as to get the special benefit of transit anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegations, the report and the fact that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria mentioned in Priya Indoria's decision, I am not inclined to grant transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. The connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 also stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)