1 D/L25 07.02.2025 Rohit ct.no.28 C.R.M. (A) 377 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 906 of 2024 dated 04.10.2024 under Sections 318(2)/318(4)/316(2) adding Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re: Subhabrata Saha …Petitioner Mr. Sumanta Das Mr. Kailash Tripathi …for the petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP Ms. Sanjana Saha …for the State Ms. Sangeeta Chakraborty …for the De-facto complainant 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Petitioner contends the cyber fraud was undertaken by a lady who acquainted herself with the defacto complainant through a matrimonial site and persuaded him to part with money. He has been falsely implicated. He prays for anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Lawyer for the State and Defacto complainant oppose the prayer. They contend petitioner masqueraded as a lady and opened an account in a matrimonial site. They induced a prospective suitor and induced him to part with 2 money. The monies were credited to the account of the parents of the petitioner and misappropriated. 4. We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner had personated as a woman on a matrimonial site and cheated the defacto complainant. He proposed marriage and induced him to part with money. The money was credited in the account of his parents and siphoned away. Statement of petitioner’s mother and documents collected in course of investigation would show the mobile numbers and UPI address used in the fraud were obtained on the consumer application forms (CAFs) submitted by the petitioner. These incriminating materials implicate the petitioner in an ingenious cyber fraud to cheat unsuspecting individuals on a matrimonial site by personating as a lady. It is not unknown that online applications are available on the internet for voice modulation which was utilized by the petitioner to mask his identity and gender. 5. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation for unraveling the ramifications of the crime is necessary and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. (Subhendu Samanta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)