3. 21-08-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ct. no.09) Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri debajyoti Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (allowed) CRM (M) 266 of 2026 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Phansidewa Police Station Case No.115 of 2025 dated 08-03-2025 under Sections 316(2)/316(5)/318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/ 336(4)/338/340(1)/340(2)/356(2)/351(2)/351(4)/79/ 317(4)/61(2)/294/111/119(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. - A n d - In the matter of : Md. Saidul & Anr. .... Petitioners. Mr. Arindam Jana, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjiv Das, Adv., Mr. Soumyajit Laskar, Adv. … For the Petitioners. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, learned AAAG, Mr. Avrojyoti Das, learned APP, Mr. Bijoy Bikram Das, Adv., Mr. Abhilash Mittal, Adv. … For the State. 1. By referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181, Mr. Jana, learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioners, has argued that the present case is arising out of a second FIR initiated by the defacto complainant after suppressing the material fact that she had already filed one FIR before Burtolla Police Station, Calcutta, on May 29, 2022 and in view of the aforesaid case law, the instant case being Phansidewa Police Station Case No.115 of 2025 dated 08-03- 2025 is not maintainable before the concerned court. However, the learned Senior Advocate is praying for bail of the present petitioners on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in a case which is not legally tenable and 2 considering their period of detention, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail on any condition. 2. Mr. Jana has also pointed out that Burtolla Police Station Case No.119 of 2022 dated 29-05-2022 ended in an FRT on the ground that the defacto complainant was not interested and, as such, in the said case, the FRT has been submitted. Mr. Jana has further submitted that in view of T.T. Antony (supra), there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of other subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences and as such, no separate case will be started. As the instant case being Phansidewa Police Station Case No.115 of 2025 dated 08-03- 2025 is a result of a second FIR, the same is not maintainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned Assistant Additional Advocate General, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. According to him, there are sufficient materials against the present petitioners and others showing that they had at least siphoned off more than six hundred crores of rupees from different people. The investigation in this case reveals that the defacto complainant’s money was received in the mule account held by Md. Khalid, which was opened at the instance of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 was also involved. However, Mr. Mishra has also pointed out that this is a renewal prayer on the part of the present petitioners. On earlier occasion, the prayer for bail made by the petitioners was turned down by a coordinate Bench of this Court which considered all the points raised herein today. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 22-12-2025 and has further submitted that no revision or appeal was 3 preferred against the said order. Further, there is no change in circumstances after passing of the order dated 22-12-2025. 4. In reply, Mr. Jana has submitted that the order of a Single Bench or a coordinate Bench is not binding upon any other Single Bench. Moreover, he has submitted that relevant questions of law were not taken up before the Hon’ble coordinate Bench. 5. I have gone through the materials on record. It appears that the defacto complainant has lodged the first FIR before Burtolla Police Station and the same was registered as Burtolla Police Station Case No.119 of 2022 dated 29-05- 2022 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further found that after hearing of some of the miscreants were apprehended by Phansidewa Police Station in connection with digital misappropriation of money, she lodged one complaint before Phansidewa Police Station on the selfsame allegation which is the basis of her written complaint before Burtolla Police Station. It is needless to mention that in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it appears that there can be no second FIR and no fresh investigation on receipt of a subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence can be proceeded with. In this case, the allegations in both the FIRs are almost the same. But unfortunately, it appears that the concerned Investigating Officer of the first FIR did not proceed with the allegations of the defacto complainant with due diligence. At the time of submitting FRT before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, he has stated as if the defacto complainant could not be contacted with on several occasions and a long time has elapsed and there was remote chance to fix up the accused. However, from the records, it further transpires that on 20-06-2024 the relevant case before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, 4 arising out of the said Burtolla Police Station Case No.119 of 2022 dated 29-05-2022 was sought to be reopened at the instance of the concerned Investigating Officer and, accordingly, the same was reopened. 6. However, it appears that the second FIR of Phansidewa Police Station Case No.115 of 2025 is hit by the observations in T.T. Antony’s case (supra). It is true that after making a thorough investigation in Phansidewa police station case, charge sheet was submitted and in that charge sheet, it came to light that the money of the defacto complainant was involved in the accounts of several accused persons at the instance of the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.2 is also involved in siphoning off money. It is further found that after submitting charge sheet, the concerned court commenced the trial in Sessions Case No.65 of 2025. However, it appears that the petitioners have been able to show that there is a serious illegality and technical error in proceeding with Phansidewa Police Station Case No.115 of 2025 which arises out on the basis of allegation/information of the defacto complainant which was the subject matter of one prior FIR which gave rise to Burtolla Police Station Case No.119 of 2022 dated 29-05-2022. When there is a clear direction from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is settled law in our country, then it is the duty of this Court to uphold the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Moreover, the above decision was not placed before the Hon’ble coordinate Bench. Therefore, I find merits in the submission of the learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Jana. 7. Mr. Mishra has submitted that the sessions trial arising out of Phansidewa Police Station Case No.115 of 2025 dated 08-03-2025 could have been transferred to the concerned court at Calcutta having jurisdiction to try the 5 same. It appears that the defacto complainant did not receive competent legal advice before filing the complaint before Phansidewa Police Station. It is further relevant to mention here that in the second FIR, the defacto complainant has completely suppressed the fact that she had already filed one FIR before Burtolla Police Station. 8. However, so far as Mr. Mishra’s submission is concerned that this Court can transfer the relevant proceedings under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, I would like to say that while considering bail applications, this Court should not venture to do this since this would have some practical administrative difficulties. However, the State has all the liberty to move appropriate application for transfer, if so advised. So far as the present bail application is concerned, the point raised by the petitioners is legally valid and as such, I am inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioners for bail. 9. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted bail on the following conditions: a) The petitioners, namely, Md. Saidul and Tapan Gope, shall be released on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each, with two local sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Siliguri, Darjeeling, provided they are not wanted in Burtolla Police Station Case No.119 of 2022 dated 29-05-2022. b) If on bail, the petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and/or as and when to be directed by the court and shall not leave 6 the jurisdiction of Phansidewa Police Station until further orders, except for the purpose of attending the court proceedings. c) The petitioners shall not intimidate or threaten the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit any cognizable offence in any manner whatsoever. d) The petitioners shall meet the Inspector-in- Charge/Officer-in-Charge of Phansidewa Police Station, thrice in a week, until further orders. 10. In the event the petitioners fail to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law. 11. The application for bail is, thus, allowed. 12. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)