24.09.2026 Sl. No.15 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2133 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 03.07.2026 in connection with Tala Police Station Case No. 0048 dated 01.07.2026 under Sections 111(4)/270/287/324(3)/329(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (G.R. Case No. 1747 of 2026) Allowed And In Re: Dhrubajyoti Bose … … Petitioner Mr. Jishnu Saha .. Sr. Advocate Mr. Ayan Poddar Mr. Soham Dutta Mr. Shounak Mondal … … for the petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Majumder .. ld. A.A.G. Mr. Aditya Tiwari Mr. Sayan Mukherjee … … for the State 1. Mr. Saha, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by a local MLA. He contends that the case is politically coloured and has been initiated following the change of political regime in May, 2026. He submits that, according to the allegations in the FIR, since 2018, Tala Park Prottoy, a committee which organises and celebrates Durga Puja, encroached upon a parcel of land measuring about 2 bighas belonging to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short, “KMC”), demolished the boundary wall, iron gate and grill standing thereon and fraudulently obtained electricity connection from CESC in the name of Tala Park Association. It is further alleged that a portion of the said land continues to remain under the occupation of the 2 said committee, as a consequence whereof the children of the locality are deprived of the use of the land as a park or playground. According to the complainant, the aforesaid acts and omissions attract the provisions of Sections 111, 329, 270 and 324 of the BNS. It is alleged in the FIR that, in view of the aforesaid allegations, appropriate legal action is warranted against the petitioner. 2. He submits that there has been an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, for which no explanation has been offered by the prosecution. He places reliance upon an unreported decision of a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos. 10023 of 2022 and 10029 of 2022 (Imran Siddiqui v. State of Karnataka), in support of the proposition that delay in lodging the FIR may result in embellishment of the allegations, which may be a product of afterthought. 3. However, he submits that the present case was ultimately registered under Sections 111(4), 270, 287, 324(3) and 329(3) of the BNS and, subsequently, Section 308(5) of the BNS was added on the basis of statements of certain witnesses recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, who alleged that the petitioner used to extort money from various persons under the guise of collecting contributions for the said Puja at various times between 2021 and 2025. 4. He submits that, although Section 111(4) of the BNS has been invoked in the present case, there is no material on record to demonstrate the existence of any continuing unlawful activity or the involvement of any organised crime syndicate. He further 3 submits that the prosecution is not in a position to demonstrate that, during the preceding five or ten years, any charge-sheet had ever been submitted against the petitioner. According to him, therefore, the statutory requirements for invocation of Section 111 of the BNS have not been satisfied. 5. He submits that the petitioner is neither a member nor a portfolio-holder of the Puja Committee which organises and conducts the Durga Puja at Tala Prottoy Park. He further submits that there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner received money from any person by cheque or by executing any document. According to him, the prosecution has been actuated by mala fide intent. 6. He claims that the statement of any witness, recorded either under Section 180 or Section 183 of the BNSS, being in the nature of a corroborative statement, cannot, by itself, establish such allegations. He claims that such statements are required to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case. He argues that, on the basis of such statements alone, the personal liberty of a person cannot be curtailed. In support of such contention, he cites a decision reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369 (Vineet Kumar & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). 7. He submits that there was no allegation of extortion in the FIR and that such allegation was subsequently introduced. He claims that such an allegation of extortion, being an afterthought, cannot form the basis for denying pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. To lend support to his such contention, he refers to an unreported 4 decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3538 of 2025 (Ajit Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). 8. He submits that the prosecution has already collected all the relevant materials and that the investigation has proceeded fairly. He further submits that there is no further requirement to keep the petitioner in custody for the purpose of eliciting any other incriminating material or evidence. He asserts that, in such conspectus, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS. 9. Mr. Majumder, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, produces the memo of evidence and the case diary and vehemently opposes the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that, although the arguments advanced by Mr. Saha regarding the invocation of Section 111 of the BNS may, at first blush, appear to be prima facie acceptable, the petitioner used to extort money from various persons who could not come forward to lodge FIRs during the previous political regime, as the petitioner was allegedly an influential person. 10. He claims that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and that there are serious allegations against him that, in connivance with a Minister of the erstwhile political party, he misappropriated a substantial amount of public money. He further submits that certain criminal cases were also initiated against the petitioner and that investigation into those cases is still in progress. Considering such antecedents of the petitioner, he submits that it would not be proper to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to him under Section 482 of the BNSS. He cites a decision reported 5 in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 740 (Sharad Sehggal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) and contends that, where a person has criminal antecedents, the benefit of pre-arrest bail ought not to be extended in his favour. He also cites another decision reported in (2022) 14 SCC 645 (Prashant Singh Rajput vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.) for the proposition that, while considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is required to apply the settled principles governing the field and take into account the material aspects of the case, including the nature and gravity of the offence and other materials placed before it. 11. In reply, Mr. Saha argues that the criminal cases which are being relied upon as antecedents of the petitioner were initiated against him after the change of political regime. He claims that the alleged antecedents, which are yet to be proved, cannot, by themselves, disentitle a person from seeking pre-arrest bail. In support of such contention, he refers to an unreported decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 15889 of 2025 (Dilip Ramchandra Maske vs. State of Maharashtra). 12. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials in the Case Diary and other materials placed before me. 13. Undisputedly, the offence punishable under Section 111 of the BNS is not an ordinary offence of cheating, extortion or land grabbing. It pertains to organised crime. Sub-section (1) of Section 111 contemplates continuing unlawful activity, including extortion, land grabbing and economic offences, committed by a person or a group of persons acting in concert, either as a 6 member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by using violence, threat, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means with the object of obtaining any material or financial benefit. The expression “continuing unlawful activity” has been defined in Explanation II to Section 111 of the BNS to mean an activity prohibited by law, which constitutes a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more, undertaken by a person, either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years. 14. Although it is axiomatic that, while considering an application for bail or anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence, reasons are nevertheless required to be assigned in support of the decision on such application. For such purpose, and since the parties have referred to certain documents and advanced submissions with regard thereto, it would be necessary for this Court to take note of and refer to such materials to the extent required for adjudication of the present application. It is, however, made clear that any observation made herein is confined to the consideration of the prayer for anticipatory bail and shall not prejudice either party at the trial, where the learned Trial Court shall consider the evidence independently and in accordance with law. 7 15. Materials on record indicates that, in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate any material to show that any charge-sheet had ever been filed against the petitioner during the preceding ten years, at least as on date. In the case at hand, in the course of hearing, the parties have jointly submitted that the KMC has dismantled the structure standing on the land, removed all temporary structures lying thereon and taken possession of the land. At least as on date, the prosecution has not been able to place any prima facie material to demonstrate that any of the other statutory requirements contemplated under Section 111 of the BNS have been satisfied. 16. Mr. Majumder has laid emphasis on the allegations of extortion. Therefore, the next question which falls for consideration is whether the allegation of extortion, as sought to be introduced in the course of investigation, prima facie satisfies the ingredients of the offence. To constitute extortion, it is necessary to establish that a person was put in fear of injury and was thereby dishonestly induced to deliver any property. 17. The facts remain that, initially, there was no allegation of extortion in the FIR. Subsequently, on the basis of the statements of certain witnesses recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, allegations have been made that, during the period from 2021 to 2025, the petitioner extorted money from them under the guise of collecting contributions for the Puja Committee or otherwise. 18. In the present case, no material is available in the case diary to demonstrate that the petitioner was a member of the Committee or that he is or was a portfolio-holder of the Committee. Nor are 8 there any documents to show that the petitioner had received money from any person. Mr. Majumder has, however, placed considerable reliance upon a bank transaction showing that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, by way of cheque, in the account of the Puja Committee. Except this, no document has been shown that the petitioner took money from any person. 19. There was no contemporaneous allegation that any person had been forcibly made to part with money, either in the guise of contribution or otherwise. The allegation that has subsequently surfaced is that, during the period from 2021 to 2025, the petitioner had forcibly extorted money from various persons. In Ajit Kumar Singh (supra), taking note of the fact that the FIR contained no allegation of rape, but that such allegation was subsequently made in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail. In Vineet Kumar & Ors. (supra), it was held that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has to be considered in the context of the antecedents, facts and circumstances of the case. Such a statement, by itself, cannot be made the sole basis for curtailing the personal liberty of a person. 20. Therefore, taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the cumulative effect of the materials on record, and the fact that the Investigating Officer has already recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the bank statements and other relevant materials, thereby making the possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence remote, and further considering that the petitioner has roots in society 9 and that there is no material to demonstrate any necessity for his custodial interrogation for the purpose of eliciting any further evidence, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioner. There is no doubt regarding binding precedent of the decisions cited by Mr. Majumder; however, those are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Sharad Sehgal (supra), against the petitioner therein, there were 22 FIRs registered for different offences. 21. Accordingly, it is ordered that, in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM Sealdah, South 24 Pgs and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Petitioner shall meet the IO once in a fortnight till submission of charge sheet. 22. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with any of the conditions, the prosecution shall have liberty to approach the learned trial court for cancellation of bail, without reference to this court. 23. The application being CRM (A) 2133 of 2026 is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)