CRM(M)/233/2026 of UDAYAN GUHA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 19 August 2026

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was an erstwhile Minister of the Government of West Bengal and after change in the political scenario in the State of West Bengal he has been falsely entangled in several cases. The present case is one of them. The petitioner is in custody for about 62 days and he is aged about seventy two years. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he being the erstwhile Chairman of Dinhata Municipality was a party to a resolution whereby all the Board members including the petitioner being Chairman inserted a condition for eligibility of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana to the effect that as the municipality did not have requisite funds, the beneficiary was to pay the requisite share of money of Rs. 18,400/-

(Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Only) which amount was required to be paid by the municipality. There was no allegation from the side of anybody that in spite of giving such requisite fees of Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Only) along with mandatory charges of Rs. 25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand Only) the construction of building was not carried out. However, as the investigation has progressed to a great extent, there is no need for further detention of the petitioner in the custody. Accordingly, considering his period of detention the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any condition. He will cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

2. The learned Assistant Additional Advocate General opposes the prayer for bail vehemently. According to him, there are sufficient incriminating materials showing that the petitioner along with his team collected money illegally from the general public on account of share of money which was mandatorily to be paid from the side of the municipality. The Chairman or members of the Board cannot insert such condition. There are two thousand one hundred beneficiaries and from some of them Rs. 18,400/- (Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Only) or Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) were collected from others on the ground to pay the share of the mandatory charges on behalf of the municipality. The learned Assistant Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to several pages of the case diary wherein several witnesses’ statements are annexed and they have stated before the Investigating Officer that the present petitioner demanded such money from them otherwise, they were threatened that they will not get the benefit of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana.

3. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed the relevant resolution wherein the Board members including the petitioner took the decision that as the municipality did not have the fund the beneficiaries will be asked to pay the share of the money which is mandatorily to be paid by the municipality. The investigation is not complete. Huge materials are required to be collected from the beneficiaries. Moreover, the petitioner is an influential person and if he is enlarged on bail there is a chance of causing intimidation, influence upon the witnesses at his instance.

4. I have gone through the material on record the allegation is very serious in nature. It is needless to mention that a municipality or its Chairman and Board member cannot insert a new clause as a condition of eligibility of person entitled to benefits of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. If there was no fund in the municipality, then a question may arise what steps the municipality had taken to obtain more funds for giving benefits to the beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana? Whether the municipality had taken any step to procure funds before taking a resolution for compelling the beneficiaries to pay the share of money which is required to be paid by the municipality? Therefore, it is essential to know whether the resolution was designedly made to siphone of the money from general beneficiaries and such point is required to be investigated. Had it been shown that in spite of an effort of the municipality, relevant funds were not made available from the ULB or other higher authorities, the petitioner could have argued that finding no other alternative the Board members compel to take such decision. From the materials on record or from the petition praying for bail I do not find the appropriate answer regarding the queries as mentioned above. Investigation is not complete and there are sufficient reasons for extending the custodial detention of the present petitioner.

5. Accordingly, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

6. The application for bail is, thus, dismissed.

7. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

8. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)