CRM (A)/2343/2026 of PRABIR GHANTA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 27 August 2026

1. Mr. Dhar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that a certain quantity of sand was found in the possession of the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of building materials. He submits that he produced all the challans relating to the sand; however, being dissatisfied with the said documents, the present case came to be registered. He submits that subsequently, all the said minerals were confiscated in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. He submits that the offences under the said Act are compoundable. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted. In such circumstances, according to him, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not warranted.

2. Ms. Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and memorandum of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She submits that the petitioner was also involved in a similar case on an earlier occasion, in which the charge-sheet has been submitted. Therefore, she submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

3. In response, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, in the earlier cases, the present petitioner was not the principal accused. He was implicated in the said case by taking recourse to Section 120B of the IPC. He produces the charge-sheet of the earlier case, being Case No. 311 of 2024 dated 30.06.2024, in support of his contention.

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. The minerals seized from the possession of the petitioner have been confiscated and sold, and the sale proceeds are lying with the competent officer. The charge-sheet has been submitted. There is no prayer in the charge-sheet seeking leave to file a supplementary charge- sheet, and there is no material available in the case diary demonstrating the need for custodial interrogation of the present petitioner. Therefore, taking note of these aspects and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the absence of any material demonstrating the necessity of custodial interrogation of the present petitioner, I am of the view that the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.

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

6. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz., Prabir Ghanta be 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, Tamluk 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.)