Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34004 (CAL)

ARKOPRAVA GANGULY @ ARKAPRAVA GANGULY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM (A)/1011/2026 · 2026-08-04

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

04.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.42. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (A) 1011 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Berhampore Police Station case no. 2387 of 2025 dated 08.11.2025 under Sections 409/467/468/471/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And In the matter of : Arkoprava Ganguly @ Arkaprava Ganguly ……Petitioner. Mr. Somnath Adhikary Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee .....for the Petitioner. Ms. Tanusree Kar ……for the State. Mr. R. Islam Mr. S. Bhakat Mr. M. Rahaman ......for the De-facto complainant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been foisted with the present criminal case because of other dispute. Petitioner is innocent and there is no relationship with the ATM Card which has been the subject matter of the case for withdrawal of money. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant submits that there are overwhelming materials so far as the complicity of the petitioner is concerned. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that within a period of time a sum of Rs.56/- lakhs were siphoned off, there are materials to support such contention and so far as the other accusations are concerned, there are independent witnesses. 2 I have taken into account the merits of the case and I find that the present is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer advanced by the petitioner is refused. Petitioner, if so advised, would appear before the jurisdictional Court and pray for regular bail. Learned Court would independently consider the prayer for bail without being influenced by observations made hereinabove. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (A) 1011 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)