06.03.2025 5 sdas Rejected C.R.M. (A) No. 681 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Amdanga Police Station Case No. 73 of 2025 dated 24.01.2025 under Sections 308(4)/3(5) of the BNS. And In Re : Nabin Maity ……. petitioner Mr. Arindam Jana Mr. Asraf Mandal ..…for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned APP Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee ….. for the State Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh ….. for the de facto complainant 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits he is the member of a gram sabha. They administer a temple in the village. De facto complainant had purchased a large tract of land adjoining the temple. Gram sabha requested the de facto complainant to hand over 4 kathas of land to develop the temple. Allegation of extortion and demand of money is an afterthought. Petitioner has co-operated with investigation. He prays for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits petitioner and his associates including a civic volunteer were running an extortion racket. Out of fear local people could not raise protest. Petitioner 2 demanded money and land from the de facto complainant who had purchased land to develop the property. His associates held out threats. Petitioner and his associates have criminal antecedents. 3. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner is a member of a gram sabha. Allegations levelled against him and his associates are serious. It is alleged they run an extortion racket and had extorted the de facto complainant who was developing a property in the locality. They demanded land and cash from him. It is contended demand of cash is not reflected in the FIR. From the totality of materials collected during investigation it is clear the petitioner as a member of the group had made illegal and unjustified demands of land under threat of dire consequences to the de facto complainant. Nature of allegations partake an organized crime activity. Petitioner has criminal antecedents. His associates also have criminal antecedents. 4. Keeping in mind the gravity of the offence and possibility of commission of similar offence in future we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to him. 5. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)