Somnath Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2025)

Somnath Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, release on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS conditions, co-operation with investigation, no threat/intimidation of witnesses, and meeting the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of the final report.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Bank Manager implicated in Bhatar PS Case No. 249 of 2024 (account-opening form with allegedly blank phone/E-mail details later filled up and subsequent unauthorized transactions), is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, i.e., whether custodial interrogation of him is required.

Court's answer

Considering the materials in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the petitioner, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is inclined to be granted anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

Anticipatory bail allowed: in the event of arrest, release on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS, co-operation with investigation, no threatening or intimidating of witnesses, and meeting the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of the final report.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Section 482 BNSS – single-judge order allowing the application of Somnath Mukherjee, a Bank Manager named in Bhatar PS Case No. 249 of 2024 (dated 16.05.2024) under Sections 420/467/468/120B IPC. Prosecution case: phone number and E-mail ID in the account-opening form were kept blank and later filled up, followed by unauthorized transactions; the co-accused allegedly took the complainant's signatures on blank forms. Petitioner's case: the form was filled up on behalf of customers with no overwriting, and he was earlier arrested and granted bail. Considering the case-diary materials and the petitioner's alleged role, the Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted anticipatory bail: bond of Rs.10,000/- with two like sureties (one local), conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC corresponding to Section 482(2) BNSS, co-operation with investigation, no intimidation of witnesses, and fortnightly meetings with the Investigating Officer till the final report.

10.11.2025 Court No.28 Item No.14 ssi

CRM (A) 2466 of 2025

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Bhatar PS Case No. 249 of 2024 dated 16.05.2024 under Sections 420/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of: Somnath Mukherjee ….Applicant/Petitioner Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Mukherjee Mr. Krishna Tangirala Mr. Soham Dutta Mr. Rishabh Agarwal Ms. Anjali Shaw …for the petitioner Ms. Subhashree Patel Ms. Debolina Das ..for the State Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is a Bank Manager before whom the de facto complainant had come after being introduced by a coaccused to open a saving account. According to the petitioner, there is no overwriting in the application for opening a bank account. It was filled up on behalf of the customers. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted for any wrong doing in this regard. Later on, it was allegedly found that there were unauthorized transactions made in respect of the bank account. In fact, the de facto complainant complained about it. The co-accused has also filed a complaint in respect of which the petitioner was arrested and thereafter granted bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the report which is taken on record and the case diary and submits as

2

follows. According to the prosecution case, the phone number and the E-mail ID were kept blank and were later on filled up. Investigation is going on in this regard. As per the prosecution, it is the co-accused who had taken the signature of the complainant in different blank forms and permitted the alleged use of phone number and E-mail ID during commission of crime.

Considering the above, the materials available in the case diary and the alleged role ascribed to the petitioner, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed.

In the event of arrest, 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 Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)