Calcutta High Court
CRM (A)/2126/2026 of SHAMBHU DAS @ ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 27 August 2026
Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.7 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. ( A ) 2126 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 03.07.2026 in connection with N.T.S. Police Station Case No. 5 of 2026 dated 10.01.2026 under Sections
27.08.2026
Ct. No. 446
Sl. No.7
akd
[Rejected]
C. R. M. (A) 2126 of 2026
In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 03.07.2026 in connection with N.T.S. Police Station Case No. 5 of 2026 dated 10.01.2026 under Sections 319(2)/318(2)/336(3)/338/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 51 of 2026)
And
In Re: Shambhu Das & Ors.
… … Petitioners
Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta
Ms. Sreemoyee Mukherjee
… … for the petitioners
Mr. Kallol Mondal .. ld. Public Prosecutor Mr. Aditya Tiwari Mr. Subhas Chandra Saha Ms. Deblina Bhattacharjee
… … for the State
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.
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with N.T.S. Police Station Case No. 5 of 2026 dated 10.01.2026, under Sections 319(2)/318(2)/336(3)/338/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. He further submits that one of the co-accused persons is on bail. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not necessary and the petitioners may be granted pre- arrest bail.
3. Mr. Aditya Tiwari, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case
2 diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that the present petitioners were involved in cyber crime. The petitioners, by using some second-hand mobile phones, dialled various customers of the bank and tried to obtain OTPs from them. Thereafter, they used the said OTPs to siphon away huge amounts of money from the bank accounts of such customers. He further submits that the investigation is in progress. According to him, in such circumstances, it would not be proper to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
4. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record.
5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence.
6. Materials on record indicate that the present petitioners were allegedly involved in cyber crime. Considering the modus operandi of the petitioners and the gravity of the offence, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and that it would not be apposite to grant them pre-arrest bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.
8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)