29.09.2026 Item No.10 Court No.7 pk Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (A) 635 of 2026 Ram Bhajan Mahato Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Ld. Sr. Adv. Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Srishti Sarkar, Ms. Payel Chanda, Ms. Bipasha Mrug …for the Petitioner. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP Mr. Janardan Periwal, Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Ms. Rajyashree Ghosh … for the State. . 1. An affidavit is filed by the applicant indicating compliance of the conditions imposed by this Court. 2. State has not challenged the contents of such affidavit. The petitioner must indeed complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in aid of the subject application. 3. What is placed before this Court from the case diary is that every time the petitioner is summoned by the I. O. and attends the police station, several persons, who were not entitled to the benefit under PMAY and had availed the same, on application counter signed and approved by the applicant, have sought to return the said sums of money in the region of Rs.25,000/- availed by them. 2 4. Some of the evidence available in the case diary indicates that the persons owning a multistoried apartment buildings have also come forward to return the paltry sum of Rs.25,000/-. Some of them are owners of guest houses and hotels. It is difficult to believe that such persons would apply under PMAY, unless they were proxies. 5. What is clearly evident before this Court at least on a prima facie examination of the case diary is that sums of money meant for persons below the poverty line to construct basic residential facilities have been diverted and illegally given to wealthy people. The petitioner has signed on such applications claiming to have believed in and relying upon the documents annexed thereto for such entitlement. This by itself would mean that the applicant may have facilitated the embezzlement of public funds. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the parking of the sums which may have come to the custody of the applicant. It also needs to be ascertained from what source the beneficiary of the PMAY are returning the funds obtained by them. There are several links in the chain of events leading to the petitioner approving the applications and where exactly such funds went. 7. While it is true that the petitioner has sincerely followed and complied with the directions of this Court, this Court cannot brush aside the prayer of the investigating agency for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Such custodial interrogation is 3 a method of investigation recognized under the BNSS and its predecessor Cr. P.C. 8. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for anticipatory bail any further. 9. Accordingly, CRM (A) 635 of 2026 is, therefore, dismissed. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)