25.08.2026 Court No.446 Item No.13 ssi CRM (A) 2251 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Jagat Ballavpur Police Station Case No.306 dated 10.09.2025 under Sections 318 (4), 316(2), 338, 351 (3), 61 of the BNS 2023. And In the matter of: Gobindo Polley …. Petitioner Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty Ms. Joyeeta Majumder Mr. S. S. Saha …for the petitioner Mr. Shankar Mukherjee ..for the State Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Kaushik Banerjee Ms. Rashmita Sen Mr. Rajarshi Banerjee …for the de facto Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that, according to the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale with the de facto complainant and agreed to sell a parcel of land to him. He submits that, subsequently, the petitioner sold the said property to a third party. According to him, after entering into the agreement, the petitioner approached the de facto complainant on several occasions for completion of the transaction, but the de facto complainant did not show any interest. As the petitioner was in dire need of money, he ultimately sold the property to a third party. He submits that immediately thereafter, the present case came to be instituted. He further submits that the alleged incident, at the highest, constitutes a breach of contract, for which the appropriate remedy lies before the civil 2 forum. According to him, a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal colour only with a view to exert pressure upon the petitioner for recovery of the said amount along with interest, and the present case has been instituted for that purpose. He submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that the petitioner may, therefore, be granted pre-arrest bail. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to return the principal amount of Rs. 4.5 lakhs to the de facto complainant on any date as may be directed by this Court. Mr. Shankar Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, produces the case diary and the memorandum of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He, in his usual fairness, submits that there is no document on record to show that the petitioner had demanded payment of the balance amount from the de facto complainant or that he had approached the de facto complainant for execution of the deed and completion of the registration process. The memorandum of evidence produced by the State is taken on record. Mr. Lahiri enters appearance on behalf of the de facto complainant upon receipt of a copy of the present application served upon him in terms of the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He submits that the petitioner, with an ulterior motive, has sold the said property to a third party and as such, according to him, such action is an offence. He further submits that the de facto complainant is a company engaged in land- related activities and that the petitioner is liable to refund the amount received from the de facto complainant together with interest accrued thereon. According to him, the agreement was entered into by the petitioner in the course of commercial dealings and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to 3 refund the amount along with commercial interest. He accordingly submits that the petitioner ought not to be extended the benefit of the protection contemplated under Section 482 of the BNSS. Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the C.D and other materials on record placed before me. As noted hereinbefore, an agreement for sale of a parcel of land was entered into between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs was paid by the de facto complainant to the petitioner as advance towards the consideration amount. Subsequently, the petitioner sold the said land to a third party. The question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether such conduct, which prima facie appears to constitute a breach of contract, warrants the custodial interrogation of the petitioner at this stage. Without entering into the larger question as to whether such conduct gives rise to both civil and criminal liability, as noted previously, the aspect which requires consideration, along with the other relevant factors governing an application for anticipatory bail, is whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The materials on record indicate that the prosecution has already collected the documents relating to the land and the agreement for sale, as well as the documents evidencing payment of the amount by the de facto complainant to the petitioner. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any material demonstrating the necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner for the purpose of collecting any further evidence. Therefore, taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner. 4 In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Howrah and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)