CRM (A)/2142/2026 of NASIRUDDIN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 18 August 2026

1. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a victim of mistaken identity. He submits that the name of the petitioner is Nasirruddin, who happens to be the son of Ekramul Haque and is attached to Batna High Madrasha. He submits that, following an incident of misappropriation of a certain amount of money under a scheme, the teachers and staff associated with Batna JMO Senior Madrasha have been made accused in this case. The son of Ekramul Haque has no connection with Batna JMO Senior Madrasha. However, the police are trying to nab the present petitioner and, since there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present application seeking pre-arrest bail. He submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring any cogent material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is involved in any money trail or that any amount of money was ever credited to his account. He submits that, in view of this fact, the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS be extended in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State produces the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available in the case diary. He submits that, in the charge-sheet, two persons, namely, Nasir, who happens to be the son of Fajlu, and another Nasirruddin, who is the petitioner herein, have been cited as accused persons. Referring to a page of the charge-sheet, he submits that showing the petitioner as an absconder, the charge-sheet has been submitted and his name has been included in the last paragraph of the charge-sheet at serial no. 17. Although, in the charge-sheet, the petitioner has been erroneously described as a para-teacher of Batna JMO Senior Madrasha, he submits that in the present case, there has been embezzlement of almost Rs. 20 crores. He further submits that, in the said Batna JMO Senior Madrasha, the number of actual beneficiaries was 95; however, more than 1,200 ghost students have received benefits under a scheme. He submits that the present petitioner was one of the agents and used to collect those ghost students. From the charge-sheet, it would be evident that persons aged about 50 years, 60 years, etc., had been shown as students and had received benefits under the said scheme. He asserts that the petitioner is involved in the said racket and, according to him, it would not be apposite to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS.

3. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary and the memo of evidence submitted on behalf of the State. It is crystal clear from the charge-sheet that the petitioner has been cited as an accused person. Although the petitioner was erroneously mentioned as a para-teacher of Batna JMO Senior Madrasha, his name and his father’s name were correctly incorporated in the charge-sheet. The police, by submitting a report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Malda, clearly stated that the petitioner has been made an accused in the alleged offence and was involved therein. The learned Court also observed that the petitioner’s name transpires from the statements of the witnesses recorded in the course of investigation. The records further reveal that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the application for anticipatory bail of a co-accused. Under the scheme, namely, ‘Aikashree’, almost 1,400 ghost students were shown as beneficiaries and received benefits and, in this fashion, crores of rupees have been misappropriated and/or siphoned off. Therefore, taking note of the nature and gravity of the offence and the mode and manner in which the offence was allegedly committed, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to hold that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is not required.

4. Accordingly, application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)