Raja Mandal Vs the State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2025)

Raja Mandal Vs the State of West Bengal — Anticipatory Bail | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for anticipatory bail allowed and CRM (A) 576 of 2025 disposed of: in the event of arrest, petitioner Raja Mandal to be released on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, 1973 / Section 482(2) BNSS; petitioner to meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight until further order, to join investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer, and to attend court on the date fixed for appearance; on default, the jurisdictional Court may secure presence including cancelling the anticipatory bail without further reference to this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Coochbehar Kotwali Police Station Case No.541 of 2025 (G.R. Case No.1088 of 2025), where the monies at issue were paid by the complainant for running a Gym business under a partnership arrangement for sharing profits. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the amount paid by the complainant to the accused was for running the Gym business and the deed of partnership dated 30th April, 2022 shows the parties entered into a partnership agreement for sharing profits of business, the disputes between the parties arise out of contractual obligation; on this footing the Court grants the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest the petitioner Raja Mandal shall be released on bail upon a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of BNSS, and shall attend the court on the date fixed for appearance.

Key takeaways

On the question of non-cooperation, the Court directs the petitioner to join the investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer, requiring him to meet the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight until further order.ratio¶¶19
Default safeguard attached to the grant: in default, the jurisdictional Court shall pass appropriate order to secure the petitioner's presence, including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted, without further reference to this Court.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous (Anticipatory Bail) — Application under S. 482 BNSS (corresp. S. 438 CrPC) in connection with Coochbehar Kotwali Police Station Case No.541 of 2025 dt. 11.06.2025 / G.R. Case No.1088 of 2025 pending before the CJM, Coochbehar, registered under Ss. 316(2), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Background: complainant invested/appended Rs. 70 lacs (odd) of an aggregate Rs. 1.44 crore in a Gym business run under a deed of partnership dt. 30.04.2022 executed with the petitioner for sharing profits. Finding that the amount was paid for running the business and that the parties' disputes arise out of contractual obligation, the Court granted anticipatory bail: release in the event of arrest on a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to conditions under S. 438(2) CrPC, 1973 / S. 482(2) BNSS; petitioner directed to join the investigation, cooperate with and meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight until further orders, and attend on dates fixed; on default the jurisdictional Court may secure presence including cancelling the anticipatory bail without further reference to this Court. Application allowed; CRM (A) 576 of 2025 disposed of. (Bivas Pattanayak, J., Calcutta HC — Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, 24.11.2025.)

24.11.2025 Item no.1 Court No.3 ss (Allowed)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

CRM (A) 576 of 2025

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS corresponding 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Coochbehar Kotwali Police Station Case No.541 of 2025 dated 11.06.2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1088 of 2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Coochbehar. .

In the matter of : Raja Mandal … Petitioner. Mr. Sudipto Kr. Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Ganguly Mr. Subhankar Dutta Ms. Rishita Chakraborty … for the petitioner Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Dhiman Sil. …..for the State. Mr. Subhasish Misra … for the de facto complainant

Report filed by the State is taken on record.

Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that by dint of an oral partnership agreement by and between the complainant and petitioner, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.70 lacs out of Rs.1.44 crore at the initiation for running a Gym. The allegations of misappropriation and cheating are mutually exclusive. The amount that has

2

been transacted by the complainant to the accused is a result of a contractual obligation. The petitioner is all along trying to comply the order of this Court passed on 8^th September, 2025. However, due to non-cooperation of the investigating agency, the petitioner could not meet the Investigating Officer, which will be evident from the letter of the petitioner addressed to the Inspector-in-Charge, Coochbehar Kotwali Police Station dated 18^th September, 2025, annexed to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. To buttress his contention, he relies on an order of the coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed in CRM(A) 320 of 2025 (in re: Pronab Sankar Sarkar) with CRM(A) 321 of 2025 (in re: Chandan Shil). He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Learned Advocate for the State, opposing such prayer of anticipatory bail, submits that the investigation is under progress. A huge sum of Rs.1.44 crore is involved in the present case. The complainant was duped by the petitioner to part with a huge sum. Further, the petitioner has not complied with the order of this Court though several attempts were made by the investigating agency to serve notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. He seeks for dismissal of the application for grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Similarly, learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits that primarily the fact as revealing from the

3

records shows of criminal breach of trust. An agreement was entered by and between the parties for sharing the profits. On such basis an amount of Rs.70 lacs and odd has been transferred by the complainant to the account of the petitioner online. However, till date no payment has been received by the complainant regarding the profits of the business. He files copy of the agreement dated 30^th April, 2022 which is take on record. He seeks for dismissal of the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

Perused the case diary and the materials on record.

Admittedly, it appears that the amount has been paid by the complainant to the accused for running the business of Gym. The deed of partnership as produced by the learned Advocate for the de facto complainant dated 30^th April, 2022 shows that the partnership agreement has been entered by and between the complainant and the petitioner for sharing the profits of business. Thus, the disputes between the parties arise out of contractual obligation. With regard to the allegation of noncooperation of the petitioner in the investigation and the counter allegation, it will be appropriate to direct the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating officer. In view of the above, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest the petitioner namely Raja Mandal shall be released on bail upon furnishing a

4

bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of BNSS and shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight, until further order. The petitioner is directed to join investigation and cooperate with the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall attend the court on the date fixed for appearance.

In default the jurisdictional Court shall pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the petitioner in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail granted without further reference to this Court.

This application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

CRM (A) 576 of 2025 is, thus, disposed of.

( Bivas Pattanayak, J .)