CRM (A)/2149/2026 of DEBANJOY BRATA ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 20 August 2026

1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife purchased gold ornaments worth Rs. 19,52,000/- from a jewellery shop, and the payment was made through RTGS from the petitioner's account in May, 2025. Subsequently, on the allegation that certain amounts defrauded by cyber fraudsters had been credited to the petitioner's account and that such amounts were used towards payment of the value of the ornaments, a lien was created over the said amount. He submits that, on a similar allegation, another case, being Muchipara P.S. Case No. 123 of 2025 dated 26.07.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/61(2) of the BNS, was registered, and the petitioner's application seeking pre-arrest bail before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, was allowed by an order dated 2nd July, 2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 105 of 2026. In the said order, it was observed that the Court did not find any details of any UPI-related fraud as yet and, accordingly, the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS was extended in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that it was alleged that certain amounts of money had been defrauded in Gujarat; however, no case has been initiated against the present petitioner till date, and the prosecution has miserably failed to produce any material connecting the present petitioner with the case initiated in the State of Gujarat. Therefore, since the police authorities have created a lien over a certain amount of money already credited to the account of the jeweller merely on the basis of suspicion, the personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed. He further submits that the lien over the said amount was created almost two months after the date of purchase.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that an amount of more than Rs. 53,55,719/- was credited to the account of the petitioner. He submits that the said amount was defrauded in Gujarat and was thereafter credited to the account of the present petitioner. Subsequently, on 20th May, 2025, gold ornaments worth Rs. 19,52,000/- were purchased by the petitioner’s wife and, on 22nd May, 2025, gold ornaments worth Rs. 20 lakhs were purchased.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and other materials available on record. There is no material in the case diary to demonstrate that the petitioner was made an accused in the case initiated following the incident of cyber fraud in Gujarat. There is also no material available in the case diary to show that the amount of Rs. 53,55,719/- was the proceeds of cyber crime or that the petitioner had allowed his account to be used by cyber fraudsters, the accused of the cyber crime or the perpetrators of the cyber crime. It appears that, in a case of similar nature, where similar allegations have been made, the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, has granted the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS, and, till date, no application has been filed on behalf of the prosecution seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the present petitioner. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner.

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., Debanjoy Brata Roy be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and on further condition that petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further order of this Court and petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of North 24 Parganas and Kolkata without prior permission of the concerned investigating officer.

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

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)