03.03.2025 61 sdas CRM(DB) 2078 of 2023 In Re : An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. AND In Re : Arun Kumar Mukherjee ……. Petitioner Ms. Pranoti Goswami …… for the petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, learned APP Mrs. Shaila Afrin ……. for the State 1. Order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party no. 2 has been challenged. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits learned Judge failed to consider that the opposite party no. 2 had prepared forged documents and forcibly entered into the petitioner’s shop room. It is also contended opposite party no. 2 had not complied with the condition of bail and did not meet with the investigating officer. He had threatened the witnesses too. 3. We have considered the materials on record. Allegations in the instant case relate to possession of a shop room. Whether opposite party no. 2 forcibly entered therein or not requires to be assessed in the course of trial. Order granting anticipatory bail granted to him is a reasoned one and 2 cannot be said to be perverse. On the score of non-cooperation with investigation we note investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. Further interrogation is not necessary. Allegations of threat also is vague and bereft of material particulars. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. 4. Accordingly application is disposed of. (Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)