06.03.2025 Sl. No.19 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (A) 793 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 27.02.2025 in connection with Cyber Police Station Kolkata Case No.125 of 2024 dated 01.11.2024 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/308(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (G.R. Case No.1092 of 2024) And In Re: Debjani Nag Biswas … … Petitioner Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Kaustuv Shome Mr. Sayan Kanjilal Mr. Rimik Chakraborty … … for the petitioner Ms. Anasuya Sinha .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Ms. Jonaki Saha … … for the State 1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is an employee of ‘Siliguri Municipal Corporation’. She knew one Pranabendu Chowdhury who had a matrimonial dispute. In connection with payment of alimony to his estranged wife, Pranabendu had used her account to credit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. She was not aware that the transaction generating the funds was not a bona fide one. Accordingly, she prays for anticipatory bail. 2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits petitioner and Pranabendu had conspired and put the de-facto complainant’s son (residing in United States of America) to digital arrest. Under threat and coercion, money was extorted from his old mother and shared by both of them. 3. We have considered the materials on record. Prosecution case discloses a case of extortion through digital arrest. De-facto 2 complainant is a septuagenarian and resides at Kolkata. Her son is residing in USA. Accused put him to digital arrest and under extortion siphoned a sum of Rs.25 lakhs from the de-facto complainant. It is alleged petitioner is also a member of the gang and the ransom was credited to her account. Entries in petitioner’s account endorses this fact. The account shows withdrawal of Rs.10 lakhs by the petitioner. Had the amount been credited by Pranabendu for payment of alimony to his wife, it would not lead to withdrawal of Rs.10 lakhs by the petitioner. 4. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner played a vital role in the cyber crime. Hence, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to her. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)