13. 13.10.2026. Court No.33. (Pritam) (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 2121 of 2026. In Re: An application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No.2192/2026 dated 03.06.2026 under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/506/120B of the IPC, 1860. In the matter of: - Khokan Das. ..…petitioner. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Ms. Pompy Bose, Mr. Souradeep Dutta, Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee, Ms. Diya Ghoshal, Mr. Himadree Ghosh. ..…for the petitioner. Mr. Debopriya Majumder. ...for the de-facto complainant. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P., Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Mr. Utsav Dutta …. for the State. 1. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner referred to orders passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court whereby the petitioner being an earlier Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of West Bengal had been granted anticipatory bail on (a) 08.10.2026 with regard to CRM(A) 3343 of 2026, (b) 08.10.2026 in respect of CRM(A) 3370 of 2026, (c) 08.10.2026 in connection with CRM(A) 3354 of 2026. 2 2. The Learned Advocate representing the present petitioner submitted political vendetta to have been an immediate reason for falsely implicating the petitioner in multiple criminal cases. It was further submitted through the incident of alleged offence initiated in the year 2020, the complaint was filed on 2nd of June, 2026 without plausible explanation of filing the complainant belatedly only with the intention of incriminating the present petitioner by the State Agencies and seeks for a prayer of bail. 3. The Learned Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail citing embezzlement of money of the complainant and several other persons including her relatives on account of issuing a fake order of Burdwan University Recruitment Board, fake admit cards and documents relating to recruitment in the post of Librarian, fake appointment letters to have been issued through a fake e-mail ID: group.c.recruitmentboard@gmail.com. 4. The complainant, on demand on refund of money from the co- accused persons namely Mandira Hazra, Swarup Dutta, Shrabani Dutta and Sourav Dutta had been intimidated by the same on account of their proximity with the petitioner, in his presence, threatening to murder her and wipe her off. The petitioner along with the co-accused persons had collected crores of money on false pretext of providing jobs to the complainant and several other persons to be recruited as Group-C and Group-D staff at the Burdwan University. 3 5. The Learned Advocate representing the State submitted of suspicious money transaction in the bank account of the petitioner to the extent of 29 lakhs credited during the period 10.04.2026 to 27.05.2026, Rs.2,47,95,269 of similar nature credited into the account of the wife of the present petitioner as well as several other huge transactions of money to have been credited in the bank account of the son of the present petitioner raising incriminating intent on the part of the present petitioner to have been actively involved in the alleged offence. Though the charge-sheet has already been submitted, however, the Learned Advocate representing the State submitted possibility of further investigation to file a supplementary charge-sheet. 6. It was further urged that the influential position of the petitioner at the relevant point of time intimidated the complainant to lodge a complaint to the detriment of her life and liberty. 7. The petitioner was shown arrest in the instant case on 11th of June, 2026 and had been in custody since then. The co- accused persons had referred to their acquaintance and proximity with the present petitioner in a syndicate to fructify an organized commission of the alleged offence as revealed from the nature of money transactions on record being unaccounted and unexplained. Huge amount of money to the extent of several crores had been detected in the account of the present petitioner and his family members from the period of 2020 till 2026. The allegations against the present petitioner are grave 4 and in the event the prosecution files a supplementary charge- sheet enlarging the petitioner on bail in the interregnum may be a possibility to influence other witnesses and tamper with the evidence. 8. The prayer for bail is rejected accordingly. 9. The Investigating Agency is to expedite the process of filing supplementary charge-sheet, if any, and the Trial Court shall frame the charges at a date pursuant to such supplementary charge-sheet being filed and proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties protracting and deterring the process of trial. 10. The petitioner may be advised to renew the prayer for bail after the vulnerable witnesses have been examined. 11. Accordingly, the application being CRM(M) No. 2121 of 2026 is dismissed. 1. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)