Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/3468/2026 of SOHOM DHOL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 9 October 2026
54 Court No.37 S.D. Rejected CRM ( A ) 3468 of 2026 In re: An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jorabagan Police Station Case No./FIR No. 93 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
09.10.2026
Court No.37
S.D. Rejected
CRM (A) 3468 of 2026
In re: An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jorabagan Police Station Case No./FIR No. 93 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024 under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
-And-
In the matter of: Sohom Dhol
… … Petitioner
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Ayan Poddar
Mr. Aditya Mukherjee
Mr. Aditya Kumar Singh
Mr. Soham Dutta
Mr. Anjali Shaw
… … For the Petitioner
Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya
Mr. Ayan Shubra Bandopadhyay
…For the State
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the bank lodged the FIR. Petitioner is a Brach Manager of such bank. He submits that loan granted by the bank is fully secure. The loan was serviced for a period of three years. Thereafter the police complaint was lodged. Learned advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the materials in the case diary. He submits that the petitioner is a signatory of a tripartite agreement between the parties. One of the parties to the tripartite agreement is the Directorate of Storage, Department of Food & Supplies, West Bengal who subsequently stated that they did not execute any such document. Involvement of the petitioner in the transaction requires investigation. In such circumstances, I am unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as grant of the same is likely to affect the quality of the investigation. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application being C.R.M. (A) 3468 of 2026 stands dismissed. Memorandum of evidence filed in Court be kept on record.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) +05'30'