17.09.2026 Item no. 03 Court No. 39 AN IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRM(A) 2011 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Org No. 572 / DEO dated 17.06.2026 issued by the Inspector of Police, Directorate of Economic Offences, Government of West Bengal for enquiry. In the matter of: Madhumay Chakraborty … petitioner Ms. Rita Patra … for the petitioner Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Ms. Tanusree Kar … for the State 1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is apprehending arrest in this instant matter although he is innocent. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that case has been registered against the present petitioner in Garfa Police Station. She 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, case diary and the report and specifically mentions that no case is registered against him; there is also no allegation made out by the complainant against the present petitioner before the office of Directorate of Economic Offences, Government of West Bengal and hence prayer for anticipatory bail is not maintainable at present as till date, no case has been 2 registered against him at Garfa Police Station relating to involvement in economic offence until passing of any order by this Court. After the allegation made by the complainant against the other accused persons, the Directorate of Economic Offences has only issued a notice to the petitioner for enquiry purpose but till date no case has been registered against the petitioner at Garfa Police Station regarding economic offence and when there is no case against the petitioner, application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 3. Learned advocate has placed reliance on three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. the State of Punjab reported at AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1632; Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India reported at 2001 LawSuit (Supreme Court) 1368 and Sushila Aggarwal vs. the State (NCT of Delhi) reported at AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 831 in support of his contention that the anticipatory bail is not maintainable as there is no case registered and no complaint made against the present petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, the case diary, and the memo of evidence as well as aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that there is no case registered against him. No complaint is lodged against the petitioner. There is no allegation against the 3 petitioner in the complaint lodged before the Directorate of Economic Offences. 5. Furthermore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner fails to satisfy this Court that there is real, reasonable and good ground for apprehension of arrest in this matter. 6. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the prayer for anticipatory bail in favour of the present petitioner is not maintainable at this stage. 7. C.R.M.(A) 2011 of 2026 stands dismissed. 8. At this stage, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one other case being Garfa Police Station Case No. 198 dated 3rd September, 2026 has been registered against the present petitioner. 9. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file application for anticipatory bail in the said case, if so advised. 10. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 11. 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.)