24.07.2026 Serial no. 6 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 979 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with GR Case No. 3529 of 2024 arising out of Tamluk PS Case No. 959 of 2024 dated 30.10.2024 u/s 318(4)/316(2)/316(5)/61(2) of the BNS read with sections 66/66B/66C/66D of the IT Act. -And- In the matter of : Usman Ali … Petitioner(s) Mr. Manjit Singh, Sr Adv. Mr. Biswajit Mal Mr. Arkaprabho Roy … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Kallol Mondal, ld. PP Mr. Brajesh Jha, ld. APP Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. P. Karan Singh … for the State-respondent(s) Learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year nine months and till date only six/seven witnesses have been examined and more than 50 witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. According to the learned Senior advocate, the petitioner runs a cyber cafe and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Senior advocate added that so far as the persons whose bank accounts have been used, they have not been made responsible by the prosecution and there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the 2 near future. Learned Senior advocate, as such, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail. Mr. Mondal, learned Public Prosecutor, opposes the prayer for bail; refers to the charge-sheet and complicity of the present petitioner along with the relevant statement of the bank account holders. On an assessment of the same and, according to the prosecution’s papers, huge number of statement of different bank accounts was collected from the present petitioner. Learned advocate again submits that so far as the supporting documents are concerned, they have been denied and/or disowned by the account holders concerned. The case relates to Government welfare scheme for students’ benefits. To that effect, the Government decided to supply digital tablets and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was allotted per student. However, such amount, according to the prosecution’s papers, has been transmitted to the fake accounts with which the present petitioner, according to the prosecution, was responsible for operating. Having considered the nature of the accusations against the present petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail as relevant witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. 3 Accordingly, CRM (M) 979 of 2026 is dismissed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)