27.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.635 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (A) 2106 of 2026 In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No. 866 of 2026 dated 24.06.2026 under Sections 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re : Sri Amit Rajak ... Petitioner. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Krishan Ray, Mr. Anindya Chowdhury, Ms. Isita Kundu ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, Ms. Pramita Banerjee ... For the State. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there are twofold allegations against the present petitioner. Firstly that some of the employees used to deposit money in their accounts which reached the petitioner and secondly there was a repayment of loan at the behest of the present petitioner. According to the learned senior advocate, bank has not suffered any wrongful loss, neither there was any entrustment so that petitioner can be held to be responsible. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that there are materials to suggest that the employees, to whom the petitioner claims to have transmitted money, have disowned the same. The money, which has been transacted, if taken as a whole, is disproportionate with the known 2 sources of income of the present petitioner. There was also a refund, according to the State, to a tune of Rs.82,00,000/- which is also disproportionate to the known sources of income of the present petitioner. I have taken into account the overall circumstances of the case which is based on documents, money transactions are involved and so far as the day-to-day transactions are concerned, the same are related from different employees of the bank; although it has been claimed by the petitioner that there has been no wrongful loss of the bank, but, prima facie, the petitioner cannot escape the contention regarding the amount of transactions which has taken place and which are monetary transactions. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 2106 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)