27.07.2026 Sl. No.01. S/L. (Allowed) Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRM (A) No.2237 of 2026 Sanjoy Kundu @ Sanjay Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal In re: An application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.133 of 2025 dated 29.12.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur Mr. Sandip Chakrabarty, Mr. Kaustav Das, Mr. Subham Ghosh, Ms. Payel Das …for the petitioner Mr. Ansuman Bera …for the State In this application, filed under section 482 of BNSS learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sanjoy Kundu @ Sanjay Kundu submits that he has been falsely implicated under Sections 316(2)/ 318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. His specific contention is that the land in question was originally settled by the Governor in favour of the de facto complainant and his name was recorded in the records of right but thereafter he being the recorded owner voluntarily executed four registered deeds of sale in favour of four persons dated 01.03.2013. By such deed of sale 71 decimal of land was transferred in favour of the petitioner herein. The de facto 2 complainant deliberately suppressed the fact and has tried to give criminal overtone to a civil dispute relating to title and mutation of the property. He further submits that the de facto complainant earlier filed a civil suit being Title Suit No.464 of 2025 suppressing the said fact of transfer and initially obtained an order of injunction vide order dated 17.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC wherein he sought for vacating of the order of injunction and learned Civil Court after hearing the parties was pleased to vacate the ad interim order of injunction vide order dated 19.01.2026 with specific observations about deliberate suppression of fact. Thereafter, the de facto complainant herein preferred Misc. Appeal being No.3 of 2026, which has also been rejected by the Appellate Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the purported allegation in the present case arises out of mutation proceeding before the revenue authorities which are fiscal in nature and neither confer nor extinguish any claim for title over the immovable property. Therefore, the entire dispute between the parties is civil in nature and he may be granted pre-arrest bail on any terms and conditions as deemed fit by this court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the state and also having gone through the materials so far collected during investigation, which started in the year 2025, I find that the custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be 3 required at this stage and learned counsel appearing for the state has not expressed any apprehension of his absconding and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail. CRM(A) 2237 of 2026 is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with two registered sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, of which one of whom must be a local and also on conditions mentioned in section 482(2) of BNSS. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )