Calcutta High Court
CRM(A)/532/2026 of SAYANTAN GUHA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 29 September 2026
No.07 Jalpaiguri 29.09.2026 sp CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
AD-5
Ct No.07
Jalpaiguri
29.09.2026
sp
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
CRM (A) 532 of 2026
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) filed in connection with Dinhata Police Station Case No. 497 of 2026 dated 08.07.2026 under Sections 384/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In the matter of: Sri Sayantan Guha
…. Petitioner.
Mr. Amales Roy, ld. Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Swagata Mitra.
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. A.P.P.,
Mr. Janardan Periwal,
Mr. Gobinda Saha,
Mr. Abhilash Mittal.
..for the State.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This Court has considered the complaint of the complainant where there is clear evidence of extortion by the applicant. The demand for money for holding their ‘Swasthya Mela’ (health check up), is unheard of. The allegation is against the petitioner and 16 other persons.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of extortion is going on since 2010 till 2025 and yet the applicant has not complained to the police until the subject complaint on 8th July, 2026.
3. This Court is of the view that the petitioner/applicant was probably, inspired by the confidence instilled by the new ruling dispensation of the State to lodge the complaint in question. It is anybody’s guess, the consequence of lodging of a complaint for extortion prior to May, 2026.
4. In the light of the above, this Court is unable to agree with the views of the previous bench that the complaint does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. This Court has also considered the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, Dinhata Police Station under Section of the Cr. P.C. (corresponding to Section 180 of the BNSS).
5. Hence, CRM (A) 532 of 2026 is hereby dismissed.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)