1 D/L 37 30.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 2020 of 2026 Himanshu Raj Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 122 of 2025 dated 05.10.2025 under Sections 111(4)/111(6)/111(2)/316(2)/318(4)/319(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. And In the matter of : Himanshu Raj ……Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Koustav Shome Mr. Safdar Azam Mr. Poulam Dey …for the Petitioner Mr. Brajesh Jha Mr. Shayan Sachin Basu …for the State 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the charges are magistrate triable so far as the petitioner is concerned. Petitioner is the sales manager of the bank who has been foisted with a criminal case without any substantive materials available against him. Petitioner further claims that there are no overt acts of the petitioner either in discharge of his official duty or in his private capacity to further detain him in custody. There is no possibility of the trial commencing any further in near future. As such, petitioner may be released on bail. 2 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was branch sales executive manager of Bandhan Bank, Hilsa Branch who opened an account in the name of one Rahul Kumar and through the said account Rs. 6.27 crores of money was rooted in the total scam of Rs. 21.55 crore. 3. It is also the contention of the State that the petitioner deliberately inserted and kept the mobile number 7209369104 with him for nine days which is linked to Bandhan Bank Current Account No. 20100056967439 standing in the name of Rahul Kumar. The handset which was used for the said purpose was earlier used by the father of the present accused/petitioner namely Himanshu Raj. 4. I have taken into account the role of the present petitioner and the materials collected against him so far as the prosecution is concerned. There are charges of organized crime. 5. Having considered the same, the total quantum which has been syphoned off by way of digital offences, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail considering the gravity of the offence. 6. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations, C.R.M. (M) 2020 of 2026 is dismissed. 7. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 8. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court. 3 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)