CRM (A)/2331/2026 of MOHAMMAD ASLAM SOLANKI AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 27 August 2026

1. Mr. Ahmed, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the dispute which led to the registration of the present case arose between the parties is predominantly civil in nature. He submits that the de facto complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioners for purchase of three properties. However, subsequently, the de facto complainant insisted upon the petitioners selling a different property. The dispute stems from such demand. He submits that the dispute led to the institution of three civil suits, two of which were filed by the present petitioners and one by the de facto complainant. He submits that, subsequently, only to exert pressure upon the petitioners, the present case has been lodged and the dispute has been given a criminal colour. He further submits that the present case has been registered under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the BNS, which correspond to Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, he submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law that a case cannot be registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC simultaneously. However, in the present case, this has been done. This aspect should also be kept in mind while deciding the present application. He submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be unjustified to compel the petitioners to remain in custody and, as such, according to him, the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.

2. Ms. Mishra, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She submits that the petitioners did not comply with the direction under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

3. In response, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that on seven occasions they went to the concerned police station. They attended the Investigating Officer in terms of the said notice; however, no endorsement was made on the said notice confirming their attendance.

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. Undisputedly, three civil suits are pending between the petitioners and the de facto complainant. Prima facie, it appears that the dispute which led to the registration of the present case has a civil flavour and that the prosecution case is based on documentary evidence.

The prosecution has failed to bring any material on record to demonstrate that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for collection of further evidence. Considering all these aspects and the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the absence of any material demonstrating the need for custodial interrogation of the present petitioners, I am of the view that the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.

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

6. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

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

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)