24.07.2026 Item No.13 Ct. No. 34 nb CRR 3372 of 2025 In the matter of: Malay Pal ...… petitioner. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattapadhyay, Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Mr. Rajashreee Tah, Ms. Aiswarya Datta, .…For the Petitioner. Mr. Saswata Bhattacharyya, …… for the O.P. No.2. 1. This revisional application is filed for setting aside the conditions imposed upon the petitioners of impugned order dated July 24, 2025, by the learned session judge, Bankura in criminal Misc. Application number 564 of 2025 rising out of G.R case number, 807 of 2025, in connection with Beliatore police station case number 75 of 2025, dated 15.6.2025, under section 316(2)/318(4) BNS, 2023. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on condition that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released upon furnishing, a bond of Rs.4000 with two registered sureties of Rs.2000, each subject to satisfaction of learned, Chief, Judicial Magistrate, Bankura on condition that after release on be, he shall strictly comply with the provision under Section 482 (2) of BNSS and with a condition to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura within 30.8.2025, for regular bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 480 of BNSS and on further condition that the petitioner has to deposit the amount of Rs.20,00,000 in favour of the complainant within seven days from the date of passing of order and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall meet the investigating officer once a fortnight submission of reporting final form. 3. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the complaint was lodged by one Gopal Pramanik on June 15, 2025 against the present petitioner with an allegation inter alia that on asking by the present petitioner, the opposite party number 2 transferred a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. So, they had joined account in September, 2024 to his account, but after taking money, the registration of a land was delayed with various excuses made by the petitioner. It is for the submitted that the Sage direction amounts to giving final relief. that part the learned judge failed to consider that it is held by the honourable Supreme Court in many cases that criminal proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings. There is a gross validation of article 21 of the constitution of India since the conditions imposed upon the petitioners are unreasonable. 5. The learned advocate representing the opposite party no.2 on the other hand, raises his objection to that extent that the petitioner instead of approaching the appropriate forum has 2 come before this court and filed this revisional application to quash the order passed as a condition in connection with anticipatory bail, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. It is further submitted that under inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot act as an appellate court over the order passed by the learned session judge while disposing of the anticipatory bail. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of this revisional application. The learned prosecution further argues that this is not appropriate forum where the issue has been raised and he’s not entitled to any relief.. 7. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties it is seen that revision application was admitted by the learned coordinate bench and liberty was given to the petitioner to surrender before the code below in terms of order dated 24th July, 2025, within seven days and the condition imposed in the bail order was given to deposit the amount of Rs.20 lakhs in favour of the complainant within seven days from the date of passing of the order, was directed not to be given effect for a period of eight weeks or until further order, whichever is earlier. Before this court, a copy of the order dated 28.11.2025 was produced which revealed that the accused was released on bail in compliance with the above order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in 2025 INSC 913 Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs state of Maharashtra & Anr. held that there shall not be a single order that the High Court 3 and the trial court shall pass for grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his family members, giving an undertaking to deposit a particular amount. The plea shall be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law. 8. In a decision reported in (2023) 7SCC461 Ramesh Kumar versus the state of NCT of Delhi. It was observed taking note of Dilip Singh versus state of Madhya Pradesh(2021) and Bimla Tiwari versus state of Bihar(2023) where expressing difficulty in arranging for funds to deposit Rs.22, 00, 000, the applicant applied before the High Court under section 482 of the CRPC seeking extension of time to make the requisite deposit. Such extension order was granted by High Court with a direction that failing which the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant shall automatically stand revoked. It was held in paragraph 26 as follows; “26..…. however, inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail. This court further observed that in exceptional cases where the allegation for of misappropriation of public money by the accused is levelled and accused while seeking indulgence of the court to have his liberty secured/restored volunteers to account for the whole or any part of the public money allegedly misappropriated by him, it would be open to the concerned court to consider whether in the larger public interest, the money is appreciated should be allowed to be deposited before the application for anticipatory bail is taken up for final consideration. However, such approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties 4 complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating”. 9. In view of the above observations, it is clear that the order passed by the learned session court with the condition to deposit the entire disputed amount of Rs.20 lakhs was not sustainable in the eye of law. The question now arises as to how far the instant application can be entertained by this court, which cannot act as an appellate court or a revisional court in connection with an order passed by the learned session in a proceeding under section 582 of BNS when both the courts are enjoying the concurrent power to hear the anticipatory bail. 10. It is the settled proposition of law that the inherent power under section 482 CrPC or presently 528 of BNS is maintainable in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. It is undisputed that the petitioner instead of filing an application before this court for quashing or setting aside the order impugned could have approached the appropriate forum but the revisional application was admitted and the petitioner was directed to be released in terms of the other part of the order passed by the learned session court and the further condition to pay the amount of Rs.20 lakhs were stayed. On behalf of state, no petition has been filed as of now for cancellation of such bail, which was granted in favour of the petitioner. 11. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding grant of condition while granting an order of 5 regular or anticipatory bail the learned sessions court ought not to have passed such order and after the order of bail has been given effect after staying of that part of the order which is under challenge there remains nothing for adjudication. 12. Therefore, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 528 of Cr.P.C this court disposed of this revisional application by modifying the order passed by the learned session court by waving the condition to deposit 20 lakhs in favour of the ₹ complaint. 13. Thus, the revisional application stands disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to both the learned District Judges for taking appropriate steps and necessary compliance. 15. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.) 6