03.09.2026 Item No. 05 Ct. No. 39 C.R.M.(A) 2089 of 2026 AN (REJECTED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Pandua Police Station Case No. 169 of 2026 dated 14.03.2026 under Sections 318(4) / 316(2) / 336(3) / 115(2) / 352 / 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and corresponding to G.R. Case No. 13421 of 2026 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsurah, Hooghly. In the matter of : Sourav Dutta … Petitioner. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi …for the Petitioner. Ms. Sanjana Jha …for the State. 1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the F.I.R. named person and he has been falsely implicated in this case though the petitioner is in no way connected with alleged offence. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner on any terms and conditions. 2. On the other hand, learned advocate representing the State produces the memo of evidence and the case diary, and relies upon the statement recorded under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, the case diary, including the statement recorded 2 under Section 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court finds that the witnesses implicated the petitioner in the alleged offence which is relating to the promise to provide loan at a lower rate of interest and obtained several documents as well as signature on some blank forms and blank papers, and later on allegedly misused the signed documents and forms for their own benefit. The petitioner also did not comply with the notice issued by the investigating officer under Section 179 of the BNSS, 2023. The investigation is in progress. 4. Considering the above circumstances, this Court finds that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner considering the role of the petitioner in committing the offence. 5. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the present petitioner, and the prayer for anticipatory bail is thus, rejected. 6. C.R.M.(A) 2089 of 2026 stands dismissed. 7. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 8. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 3