CRM (A)/2202/2026 of SK ANISUR HAQUE @ SK ANISUL HAQUE Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 August 2026

1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, in the FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner represented himself to be the owner of two parcels of land bearing Plot Nos. 82 and 83 of Golapichak, Mouza – Dakshin Amchhata, Dist. – Paschim Medinipur. It was alleged that the de facto complainant transferred Rs. 36 lakhs through RTGS and Rs. 21 lakhs was deposited in the Bank accounts of the petitioner and his wife on several occasions. He submits that subsequently, on the plea that the petitioner had no saleable right in respect of the said property, the present case was initiated. He submits that it is absurd to believe that, without execution of any document, such a substantial amount of money was handed over to the petitioner. He submits that only an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs was credited to the account of the petitioner as commission for the work done by the petitioner.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the concerned Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, has collected all the documents evidencing such transaction. He submits that the petitioner, by fraudulently misrepresenting himself to be the owner of the land, accepted the said amount of money. It is submitted that it would not be proper to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was issued to the petitioner; however, he did not comply with the instructions contained in the said notice.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. From the documents available in the case diary, it appears that the land vested in the State and, subsequently, patta was granted in respect of the said two plots of land. A civil suit is also pending in relation to the said two plots of land. It is alleged that the petitioner misrepresented himself to be the owner of the said two plots of land and collected money from the de facto complainant. The said money was deposited and/or transferred into the accounts of the petitioner and his wife. From the case diary, it is found that the Investigating Officer has collected the statement of account of the petitioner and other documents, including the deposit slip from the concerned bank. The prosecution case is based on documentary evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioners is not warranted and the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners.

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

5. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner, viz., Sk. Anisur Haque @ Sk. Anisul Haque 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, Paschim Medinipur 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 not leave the jurisdiction of Kotwali Police Station except for the purpose of attending court proceeding and provide address where he shall be presently residing to the investigating agency and to the trial Court.

6. However, in case any condition is violated, State shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to cancel the bail application.

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

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)