27.08.2026 Sl. No.29 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2342 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Salar Police Station Case No. 16 of 2026 dated 18.01.2026 under sections 318(2) BNSS 2023 And In Re: Sourav Misra … … Petitioner Ms. M Gomes Md. Hafiz Ali … … for the petitioner Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee Mr. Harshit Jaiswal … … for the State Mr. Kallol Kr. Basu Mr. Jannat Ul Firdous … … for the de facto complainant 1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Army personnel and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that, in a transaction, the petitioner received only Rs.1,00,000/- through his bank account, which was nothing but a loan. However, subsequently, in order to create pressure upon the petitioner for recovery of the said amount, the incident was given a criminal colour. He prays for bail. 2. Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and Memo of Evidence and vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of the materials available therein. He submits that the petitioner has collected money from several other similarly situated candidates on the false promise of providing them employment in different government offices. 2 3. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and produces documents showing the transfer of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner through UPI. 4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Though the petitioner is an Army personnel, the allegations levelled against him are serious in nature. The materials on record indicate that not only from the de facto complainant in the present case, but also from other persons, the petitioner collected money in a similar manner on the false promise of providing employment in various government offices. Taking note of this fact and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I am of the view that it would not be proper to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)