14.09.2026 Sl. No.4 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2269 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jamalpur Police Station Case No. 191 of 2026 dated 20.05.2026 under Sections 323/504/409/467/468/471/120B IPC And In Re: Sahabuddin Mondal @ Panjab … … Petitioner Mr. Soubhik Mitter Mr. S Bhattacharya Ms. Dipa Bhattacharya … … for the petitioner Allowed Ms. Swagata Das … … for the State 1. Mr. Mitter, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that, after losing the election, the petitioner has once again been implicated in this case out of personal grudge and political rivalry. He submits that the de facto complainant, namely, Mirataz Sk, had previously lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Purba Bardhaman, inter alia, alleging that, by opening a bank account in the name of Nari Chetana Mahila Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd., the petitioner, along with his henchmen, misappropriated almost Rs. 30 lakhs. He submits that, treating the said complaint as an FIR, Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 288 of 2019 dated 3.9.2019 under Sections 420/468/467/471/120B of the IPC was started. Upon completion of the investigation, the concerned I.O. submitted FRMF No. 175 of 2020 dated 31.7.2020. He submits that the said FRMF was accepted by the competent Court, resulting in the closure of the said case. Subsequently, almost seven years later, in 2026, the same complainant filed another complaint on 20.5.2026 on the 2 self-same cause of action, stating that a bank account was opened in the name of the said Samity and that it was her assumption that transactions amounting to Rs. 2.5 crores took place from the said bank account. He submits that the present case is hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy. He has submitted the audit reports for the years 2017-2018 to 2023-2024 and for the financial year 2024-2025. He claims that such audit reports do not indicate any suspicious transaction through the account of the Samity. He has also furnished the statement of accounts of the petitioner, showing that there was no transfer of money from the account of the Samity to the petitioner's account. Producing the bye-laws of the Samity, he submits that the bye-laws indicate that, for any transaction from the account maintained by the said Samity with any bank, the signatures of three members of the Samity are required, and that the bank account of the Samity was operated in accordance with the bye-laws of the Samity. He submits that one co-accused person was arrested and was taken on remand for almost eight days. However, no incriminating material was elicited therefrom, and the concerned I.O. could not collect any document evidencing any abnormal transaction of money or property in the name of that accused person. He submits that another accused person, namely, Mehemud Khan, was also arrested in this case and is on bail. He prays for pre-arrest bail for the petitioner. 2. Ms. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the case diary and Memo of Evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of 3 the materials available in the case diary. She submits that there is an allegation of a transaction involving almost Rs. 2.5 crores. The petitioner has past criminal antecedents. According to her, it would not be apposite to extend the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS in favour of the petitioner. 3. In response, Mr. Mitter submits that, so far as the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is concerned, the case was initiated following a dispute that had cropped up between the said society and, in that case, the present petitioner was granted the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials in the case diary. In the FIR, it is alleged that one bank account was opened in the name of the Samity in the year 2023. However, there are no such materials demonstrating that any account was opened in the name of the Samity in 2023 in any bank in and around the locality or in any part of the State. In the FIR, it is also alleged that, as per the assumption of the de facto complainant, there was a transaction of Rs. 2.5 crores from the said account. The audit reports, as produced by the petitioner, do not indicate transaction of such amounts through the account of the Samity. Co-accused persons on similar footing have been granted bail. The prosecution case is primarily based on documentary evidence. Considering all these aspects and the nature of the allegations, and also considering the fact that, on an earlier occasion, similar allegations were raised by the same person against the petitioner along with some other persons, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the 4 petitioner is not necessary and that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner, however, on certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner viz. Sahabuddin Mondal @ Panjab shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM Purba Bardhaman and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Petitioner shall meet the IO once a fortnight till submission of charge sheet. 6. The application being CRM (A) 2269 of 2026 is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)