20.08.2026 Court No.551 Item No.6 tbsr CRM (A) 2405 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lake Town P.S. Case No. 258 of 2025 dated 15.09.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/338/340(2)/351(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. And In the matter of: Arun Kumar Mishra ….Petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Abhishek Agarwal Ms. Sofia Nesar Ms. Rupa Singh Mr. Mrityunjoy Dutta Banik Mr. M. Sadhukhan …for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, ld. PP Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi Mr. Pritam Roy ….for the State 1. Memo of evidence filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was a developer in respect of certain properties. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the registered development project. He further submits that after development of the properties, the petitioner came to know that certain deeds in respect of such properties developed by the petitioner, which were registered in favour of third parties. The deeds are said to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of such incident and lodged criminal case against several persons in the year 2024 including his own employee. He refers to the development agreement as well as the alleged deeds said to be executed by some persons in the name of the petitioner, in order 2 to point out that the photograph as well as the signature of the petitioner in the two documents were different. The petitioner also submits that the consideration money for the aforesaid properties is said to have been paid through demand draft and cheque but the petitioner has not received such money. In support of his contention, the learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the statements of his two bank accounts, annexed to the present application. He further submits that the investigation of the case is yet to conclude. A second FIR over the self-same incident ought not to have been instituted. He submits that the petitioner is completely innocent in respect of the alleged incident in the present case. He denies having executed any deed of conveyance in respect of the property developed by him. He prays for anticipatory bail. 3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State refers to the materials available in the case diary. He points out a demand draft drawn in favour of A.K. Enterprise belonging to the present petitioner. He also relies upon an account statement showing credit of the amount involved in the demand draft. He also submits that a bank account with Indian Overseas Bank, Lake Town Branch was opened in the name of A.K. Enterprise and the money was credited to that account. Such money was in respect of the deeds said to have been executed by the present petitioner. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 3 4. Having considered the rival submissions and considering the materials placed with the instant application for anticipatory bail as well as the materials contained in the case diary, it transpires that the present petitioners denies having opened any account in the name of A.K. Enterprise in the Indian Overseas Bank. 5. It has been stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the aforesaid account was opened by some third party using his nem and credentials. The petitioner never received the amount involved in the said account. From the material placed on record, it also transpires that the petitioner lodged criminal case in the year 2024. He also filed a civil suit in respect of the properties involved in the present case seeking cancellation of the alleged deeds. The bank is also a party to such suit. An interim order was passed in such suit in presence of the bank. 6. It further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the instant criminal case had been started after three years of the alleged incident. In reply, the learned advocate for the State submits that the bank account was declared as Non-Performing Asset by the authorities and thereafter the instant First Information Report has been lodged. It also transpires that huge amount of money amounting to Rs. 89 lakhs was disbursed towards loan and according to the materials collected, so far in course of investigation, the aforesaid money stood transferred to the account lying in the name of A.K. Enterprises. The petitioner 4 has denied having opened such account. Although the petitioner is associated with A.K. Enterprise. 7. The matter requires investigation. Huge amount of public money is involved. 8. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)