28.08.2026 Court No.551 Item No.19 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 2550 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with English Bazar P.S. Case No. 145 of 2026 dated 31.01.2026 under Sections 406/420/465/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of: Ananda Ghosh & Ors. ….Petitioners. Mr. Subir Banerjee Mr. Rasidul Islam Molla Mr. P. Ghosh …for the petitioners. Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Mr. Jnip Bose …..for the State. Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee ….for the de facto. 1. Memo of evidence filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Upon hearing the rival contentions made on behalf of the learned advocate for the petitioners, learned advocate for the State as well as the learned advocate for the de facto complainant and on perusal of the material in the case diary, it appears that the incident relates back to the year 2018. The petitioner no. 1 is alleged to have persuaded the de facto complainant to part with Rs. 60 lakh towards the purchase price of bricks from the brick field. The petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner no. 1, the petitioner no. 4 is friend of the petitioner no. 1 and the others are employees of the brick field. It has been alleged that after payment of such money neither the bricks were provided in terms 2 of the agreement between the parties nor money was refunded which has given rise to the instant case. It is also submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant that this is not the first time when the de facto complainant have been duped at the behest of the petitioner no. 1. 3. Learned advocate for the State and the learned advocate for the de facto complainant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. From the materials in the case diary, it is quite evident that the case has cropped up over business disputes between the de facto complainant and the petitioner no. 1. There are allegations that the petitioner no. 1 persuaded the de facto complainant to pay the price of the bricks to be supplied to the de facto complainant that has not been supplied. Such payment is alleged to have taken place on January 24, 2020 by the cheque and other dated December 29, 2023 to another cheque. 5. The disputes involved are purely commercial in nature. 6. In such circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed. 7. Accordingly, I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of 3 Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight till the conclusion of investigation and on condition that the petitioners shall appear on every date before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioners in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court. 8. Accordingly, CRM (A) 2550 of 2026 is allowed. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)