IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 26.11.2025 Item No. 15 (DL) AN (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 in connection with Alipurduar P.S. Case No. 149 of 2025 dated 23.04.2025 under Section 108 / 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 684 of 2025 pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar. In the matter of : Sri Shubham Pramanik … Petitioner. Mr. Abhilash Mittal Mr. Rajdeep Das …for the Petitioner. Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, ld. APP Mr. Sourav Ganguly …for the State. 1. The petitioner renews his prayer for anticipatory bail. Earlier, application being CRM(A) 521 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 11th September, 2025. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there are no such allegations against the petitioner of abetting the suicide by the deceased. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. The co- accused have been granted bail. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 3. On the contrary, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, learned advocate for the State submits that the co- accused Srabani Debnath had previous love affairs with 2 the deceased victim which turned sour. Thereafter, the present petitioner by impersonification pretending to be an Officer of Cyber Crime Cell pressurized the victim on the pretext of entangling him in criminal cases which ultimately forced the deceased to commit suicide. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 4. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. 5. It is found from the statement of the witness recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the Whatsapp message that there are allegations against this petitioner of pretending to be an Additional Enquiry Officer, Cyber Crime Cell, Jhalukbari by impersonifying before the deceased victim. Further on such pretext he pressurized the victim that he will be filing complaint against the victim. The victim committed suicide thereafter. As per the post mortem report, the death was due to effect of asphyxia as a result of hanging which is ante mortem and suicidal in nature. In view of the above materials and bearing in mind the nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 6. Thus, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. 3 7. The application being CRM(A) 793 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)