CRM (A)/2313/2026 of DANISH FIRDOUS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 2 September 2026

1. Mr. Amin, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a developer and had constructed a multi- storied building and entered into an agreement with the de-facto complainant to sell a flat to him. He submits that subsequently the de- facto complainant refused to purchase the same, and it was agreed between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant that the amount accepted by the petitioner as advance would be refunded to him. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into and, out of the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs accepted as advance towards the consideration money, Rs. 1.5 lakhs has already been refunded. He submits that, as per the terms and conditions, the balance amount will be refunded. However, to exert pressure upon the petitioner, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint, based on which the present case came to be registered. He submits that the dispute between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner is purely civil in nature and, in such circumstances, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required.

2. Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the present petitioner is a habitual offender and is in the habit of cheating different buyers. He submits that the petitioner was authorized to construct a G+2 building; however, he has illegally constructed a G+4 building. He has sold an illegally constructed flat to the de-facto complainant, who thereafter filed an application before the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act and then came to learn that the flat sold to him had been illegally constructed. He then asked the petitioner to refund the money taken as advance towards the consideration amount. He submits that subsequently, the said flat was sold to a third party.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the de-facto complainant and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials on record.

5. The prosecution case is primarily based on documentary evidence, and from the case diary, it appears that the investigation has proceeded fairly and that the concerned Investigating Officer has also collected the documents relating to the transaction between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the role allegedly played by the petitioner, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not necessary and that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.

7. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz. Danish Firdous released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a fortnight till the submission of charge-sheet.

8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)