Sl. No.22. 28.09.2026 Suman Ct. 237 CRR 3160 of 2026 Nilesh Pal Alias Nilu Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Malay Bhattacharya Mr. Subhrojyoti Ghosh Mr. Rohan Mitra ..for the petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. S. Chatterjee Mr. Dhiman Banerjee ..for O.P. No.2. Mr. Amarta Ghose Mr. Probal Das .for the State It appears that the complaint in the present case was filed, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had failed to repay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2. Pursuant to the said complaint, Patrasayer Police Station Case No. 156 of 2025 dated June 17, 2025, was registered under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, by an order dated August 21, 2025, inter alia, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2. Thereafter, an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to refund the said sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the de facto complainant. Upon consideration of the said application, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the anticipatory bail by an order dated July 17, 2026. The said order dated July 17, 2026, has been challenged before this Court by the accused/petitioner. It appears that the principal ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail was the petitioner's failure to pay the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2. The order further records that the petitioner had failed to comply with another condition of the anticipatory bail, namely, to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for opposite party no. 2, submits that the anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge on the representation of the petitioner that he had already paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph of the order dated August 21, 2025, in support of his submission. It appears that a submission was made before the learned Sessions Judge that the petitioner had paid the “alleged money” to opposite party no. 2. It is, however, difficult to accept that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis of such submission. In fact, in the operative portion of the order, the learned Sessions Judge specifically directed the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the de facto complainant. In view of the aforesaid apparent contradiction, this Court is not inclined to hold that the petitioner had obtained the order granting 2 anticipatory bail by misleading the learned Sessions Judge, particularly in the context of the alleged violation of the conditions imposed therein. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly complied with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and had met the Investigating Officer. It is, however, submitted that after the application for cancellation of bail was filed, the petitioner, apprehending arrest, did not meet the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the application for cancellation of bail was filed within one and a half months from the date of grant of anticipatory bail. It is specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall duly comply with the order dated August 21, 2025 and all the conditions imposed therein. This Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in granting anticipatory bail subject to the condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to opposite party no. 2. Such a condition cannot ordinarily be imposed as a condition for grant of bail. The said view finds support from the judgment reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571 (Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.). Accordingly, the order dated July 17, 2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura, is set aside. However, it is made clear that, in the event the petitioner fails to comply with any of the other conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated August 21, 2025, subsequent to 3 the passing of this order, the learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to consider an application for cancellation of the petitioner's bail on such ground, in accordance with law. Accordingly, CRR 3160 of 2026 is allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.) 4