CRM (A)/2272/2026 of SIRAJUL MOLLAH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 August 2026

1. This instant application has been filed with a prayer for anticipatory bail.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, out of political rivalry and personal grudge, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that, if the petitioner is compelled to remain in custody in connection with this case, the same would amount to an abuse of the due process of law. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.

3. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and Memo of Evidence and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned Advocate for the State submits that the Investigating Officer has collected several documents, out of which 42 documents contain the signature of the petitioner, which indicates that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offence and played an active role in the commission of the offence. He further submits that one person was a beneficiary under the PMAY Scheme, but the amount disbursed in his favour under the said

2 scheme was credited to the account of another person, and in this way, a huge amount of money has been misappropriated.

4. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the present petitioner and, further, the materials on record collected by the Investigating Officer, I am of the view that certain incriminating materials are available in the case diary against the petitioner. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is very much required.

5. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.

6. As a sequel, the application for anticipatory bail being C.R.M. (A) 2272 of 2026 stands dismissed.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)