18.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.7 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. C.R.M. (SB) 37 of 2025 XXX versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. In Re: An Application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Mr. Biswarup Chatterjee … For the Petitioner. Mr. Utsav Dutta … For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the accused/opposite party no.2 was granted bail on 06.03.2025 and the accused persons as a whole were involved in a fake job racket. Additionally, one of the accused persons violated the privacy of the de facto complainant. A fake appointment letter was handed over. So far as the opposite party no.2/accused person is concerned, his anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court and thereafter he was arrested on 08.02.2025 and was granted bail on 06.03.2025. Learned advocate for the petitioner expresses her grievance relating to the order of bail including gravity of the offence with an additional issue relating to no condition being imposed while the accused person was granted bail. State has produced the Memo of Evidence. I have taken into account the complicity of the present petitioner as also the materials appearing. So far as the materials are concerned, there is bound to be a grievance so far as the 2 present petitioner’s sufferance is concerned. Records reflect that another accused is the principal offender and opposite party no.2 was associated with him. On 06.03.2025 when the learned Magistrate granted bail, there was a change of circumstances in the meantime as charge-sheet was submitted on 27.02.2025. The same could have weighed with the learned Magistrate while granting bail. Having considered the fact that there was application of judicial mind by the learned Magistrate, I am of the opinion that there is hardly any scope for interference as the order do not reflect lack of judicial appreciation by the learned Magistrate. However, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner while granting bail considering the gravity of the offence, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to impose conditions so that the accused remains bound in course of progress of the trial. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that conditions be imposed on the accused/opposite party no.2 viz., Suchand Roy @ Sukchand Roy that he should not leave the district of Paschim Medinipur and shall be physically present on each and every date before the learned Trial Court. In case the accused/opposite party no.2 is absent and is not cooperating with the progress of the case, learned jurisdictional court be it the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal or any other jurisdictional Magistrate in seisin of the case would cancel the bail of the accused person, without further reference to this Court. 3 Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. With the aforesaid observations, the application for cancellation of bail being CRM (SB) 37 of 2025 is disposed of. 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.)