Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37644 (CAL)

JAVED v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1754/2026 · 2026-09-02

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

02.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.299 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1754 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 28 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 under Sections 318(4)/319(2)/338/336(3)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C)/66(D) of the Information Technology Act. And In Re : Javed ... Petitioner. Mr. Abu Zar Ali, Mr. Sk. Md. Wasim Akram ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Sayak Chakraborty, Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with the present case on 27.10.2025. Earlier petitioner was arrested in connection with another case and was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge’s Court at West Delhi. Petitioner is a businessman who has been accidentally embroiled in such case. He has no contact with the principal accused. As such, petitioner may be released on bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that 1500 victims were duped for a fake advertisement for hotel bookings in website and huge amount of money was collected; a racket is operating to dupe the common people 2 by different means. The present petitioner is connected with the principal accused in another case. Be that as it may, I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary as well as the involvement of the present petitioner including the factum that there is an antecedent of the petitioner. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1754 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)