IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 08.07.2026 Item No. 28 Ct. No. 5 C.R.M. (A) 460 of 2026 Sayan In Re:- An application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 In the matter of : Sushil Das … petitioner. Mr. Sourav Ganguly Ms. Rishita Chakraborty …for the petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Mr. Partha Pratim Sarkar …for the State. 1. The petitioner is anticipating arrest in connection with Madarihat Police Station Case No. 122 of 2024 dated October 14, 2024, under Sections 61(2), 112, 303(2), 316(3), 287, 288 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 3, 5, 6 of Exclusive Substance Act, 1908 and 7 of Essential, 1955 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar. 2. The petitioner’s contentions are three-fold that the portion of land on which allegedly, the incident happened regarding which suo moto FIR was lodged in the instant case, though belonged to him but as an owner thereof he has leased out the property much earlier that is, on March 02, 2019 to one Nur Nabi Hoque. Secondly, the entire money trail was between the principal accused person and other accused person and petitioner’s name has not transpired anywhere. Further, it has been submitted that in charge-sheet though the police has mentioned about the petitioner being absconder for a prolonged period of time, the same is only misconceived 2 and false, in view of the fact that during the alleged period of absconding, the petitioner has been served with summons of Court by police in connection with some other case and he appeared before the Court and his deposition was recorded by the Court. Certified copy of the deposition of the petitioner before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court at Alipurduar dated February 10, 2025 is relied on in this regard. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been physically indisposed and suffering with serious disease during the concerned period that is, from 2024 to 2025. The petitioner has relied on prescriptions etc. issued to him during that period. Finally, it is submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted on completion of investigation, petitioner’s custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 3. It is also submitted that, other accused persons including the principal accused person have already been released on bail and the petitioner seeks bail on the ground of parity. 4. State has strong objection to the contentions and prayer of the petitioner for the reasons inter alia that, the State has challenged the very genuinity of the lease deed as relied on by the petitioner. What the petitioner has intended to establish on the basis of the lease deed dated March 02, 2019 that after given in the land for lease the petitioner had no direct control or supervision over there – has been strongly denied on behalf of the State. It is submitted that the signatures of the petitioner in the lease deed and the present petition substantially differ thereby raising strong doubt as to the genuinity of the lease deed and also to the submission of the petitioner 3 that he has no connection with the operations going over the said landed property. 5. Furthermore, on behalf of the State, it has been specifically contended that the petitioner’s conduct is not conducive of a fair trial insofar as he has been a habitual absconder, absconding from the process of law in this case for a period about one year from the date of incident. 6. Having heard both the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the materials on record and CD, it appears firstly, that investigation has already been concluded. The question raised as regards the genuinity of the lease deed etc. shall therefore, have little impact at the time of consideration of the petitioner’s application for grant of anticipatory bail. During the period of investigation, the police has not brought on record either the lease deed itself or any investigation regarding its genuinity etc. In such circumstances, it may naturally appear that, implication of the petitioner in the instant case by the police is on the basis of guess work only without going through the lease deed as relied on by the petitioner or without finding out answer of the question if the petitioner had direct possession, supervision or control over the said piece of land. No doubt, for the petitioner no money trail connected with the instant offence, could be recovered. Further, the allegation of petitioner being long absconding from the process of Court is also demolished in view of the certified copy of deposition of the petitioner in Court dated February 10, 2025. It is noteworthy that the principal accused person and the other accused persons are on bail right now. Accordingly, petitioner’s custody for the purpose of investigation is not found to be necessary. 4 7. For all the reasons as above, I find it proper to allow the petitioner’s bail prayer. 8. It is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar. The petitioner shall comply with the condition under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and shall cooperate with investigation in all possible way. He shall not intimidate witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the evidence of the case in any manner whatsoever. 9. CRM (A) 460 of 2026 is disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)