Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2788/2026 of PRADIP SINHA ROY AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 22 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 10. Kausik (Rejected) CRM ( A ) 2788 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bagdah Police Station Case No. 420 of 2026
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.
22.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 10. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (A) 2788 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bagdah Police Station Case No. 420 of 2026 dated 12.06.2026 under Section 316(4)/318(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
And In the matter of : Pradip Sinha Roy & Ors.
……Petitioners.
Mr. Susnigdho Bhattacharyya
……for the Petitioners.
Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, Ld. APP
Mr. Bhaskar Seth
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has earlier submitted that because of political vendetta the present petitioners have been arrested in connection with the instant case. Earlier an order was passed that protection be granted till 18th September, 2026 so that the petitioners can co-operate with the investigating officer.
Today a report has been submitted before this Court which reflects that the petitioner no. 4 and petitioner no. 1 is involved in diversion of the money of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojona. So far as the other accused petitioners are concerned, it has been categorically submitted on behalf of the State that, inspite of the interim order granted, they did not co-operate
2 with the investigation and during this period did not meet with the investigating officer of the case.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners are unable to apprise this Court relating to the said issue.
Having considered that, prima facie prosecution has been able to make out a case for diversion of the funds by persons who were at helm of affairs at the relevant point of time, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in CRM (A) 2788 of 2026 is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.
Report submitted by the State be kept with the record.
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.)