Sanju @ Bibek Bera Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2025)

Sanju @ Bibek Bera Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: release upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsurah, Hooghly, subject to conditions of remaining within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court, weekly reporting to the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station, regular appearance before the jurisdictional Court, and no intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence or commission of cognizable offences; jurisdictional Court empowered to cancel bail on breach.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Sanju @ Bibek Bera, in custody for about six months in connection with S.C. Case No.193 of 2025 (arising out of Balagarh P.S. Case No.239 of 2025 dated 18.05.2025) under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/318(2)/64(2)(m)//351(2))/69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, should be released on bail.

Court's answer

The Court was inclined to grant bail considering the materials available in the case diary, including the statements of the survivor that there was some kind of a relationship between the survivor and the petitioner for some time and they even went to places together, the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, and the petitioner's custody of about six months.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one of whom must be local) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsurah, Hooghly, on conditions that he remains within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court, reports once a week to the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station until further orders, appears regularly before the learned jurisdictional Court until further orders, and does not intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence or commit any cognizable offence.

Key takeaways

In the event the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the stipulated conditions without justifiable cause, the jurisdictional Court shall be at liberty to cancel the petitioner's bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted - Jay Sengupta, J. directs release of petitioner Sanju @ Bibek Bera, accused under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/318(2)/64(2)(m)//351(2))/69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in S.C. Case No.193 of 2025 arising out of Balagarh P.S. Case No.239 of 2025 dated 18.05.2025, upon a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsurah, Hooghly. Bail was allowed in view of the case diary materials, including the survivor's statements indicating a relationship between the survivor and the petitioner who went to places together, the submission of the charge sheet, and the petitioner's custody of about six months, notwithstanding that the alleged survivor refused medical examination. Conditions imposed: remain within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court, report once a week to the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional Police Station, appear regularly before the jurisdictional Court, and refrain from intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence or committing cognizable offences; the jurisdictional Court may cancel the bail for breach without further reference to this Court.

12.12.2025 SL.06 Ct.No.28 NB

CRM (M) 2174 of 2025

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 S.C. Case No.193 of 2025 arising out of Balagarh P.S. Case No.239 of 2025 dated 18.05.2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/318(2)/64(2)(m)//351(2))/69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And

In the matter of: Sanju @ Bibek Bera

…. petitioner

Mr. Ashik dinda, Ms. Hena Bhangi, Dr. Indranil Srimani. …for the petitioner.

Ms. Sonali Bhar

...for the State.

Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

No one appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. It is alleged that the petitioner established a relationship with the alleged survivor on promise to marry. However, thereafter he had to disclose that he was already married and had children. The petitioner has been in custody for about six months.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case dairy and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, she admits that the alleged survivor refused to undergo medical examination. Charge sheet has already been submitted and a date has been fixed for framing of charge.

Considering the materials available in the case diary including the statements of the survivor that there was some kind of a

2

relationship between the survivor and the petitioner for some time and they even went to places together, the fact that charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner is in custody for about six months, I am inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner.

Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner, namely Sanju @ Bibek Bera shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinsurah, Hooghly and on further condition that the petitioner shall remain within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court and shall report to the Officerin-Charge of jurisdictional Police Station once in a week until further orders. The petitioner shall appear before the learned jurisdictional Court regularly until further orders and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence and/or commit any cognizable offence in any manner whatsoever.

In the event, the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above without justifiable cause, the jurisdictional Court shall be at liberty to cancel the petitioner’s bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.

The application for bail is, accordingly, allowed.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

3