28.08.2026 Ct. No. 446 Sl. No.8 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. (A) 2263 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 07.07.2026 in connection with Ketugram Police Station Case No. 110 of 2026 dated 24.02.2026 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re: Tapan Saha & Anr. … … Petitioners Md. Abdur Rakib Mr. Mojahid Mehedi … … for the petitioners Mr. Baibhav Roy … … for the de-facto complainant Ms. Shalu Gupta … … for the State 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Ketugram Police Station Case No. 110 of 2026, dated 24.02.2026, under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case, which has been lodged to counter a case in which the de facto complainant is an accused person. He further submits that the co- accused persons have been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman, vide order dated 22nd June, 2026, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1111 of 2026. In such circumstances, according to him, similar privilege may be extended to the present petitioners. 2 3. Ms. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, produces the Memo of Evidence as well as the case diary and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. She submits that the persons who have been granted pre- arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Bardhaman, are standing on a different footing. She further submits that the present petitioners are the main signatories and perpetrators of the crime. The Memo of Evidence filed in Court today is taken on record. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioners have been threatening the de facto complainant with dire consequences. A complaint case being Ketugram Police Station Case No. 0471 of 2026, dated 5th August, 2026, has already been lodged against the present petitioners. 5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the case diary as well as the other materials on record including the Memo of Evidence. 6. In the FIR, it has been alleged that, by fraudulent means, the petitioners have taken an amount of Rs.21,10,000/- and 340.154 gms. of gold ornaments. The prosecution has collected the money receipt relating to the gold ornaments. However, till date, the articles have not been seized. Taking note of this fact, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and that it would not be apposite to grant them pre-arrest bail. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stand rejected. 8. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)