Sreerupa Bhowmick Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2026)

Sreerupa Bhowmick Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for anticipatory bail allowed: on arrest, petitioner to be released on bail 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 conditions of cooperating with the investigation and not threatening or intimidating witnesses.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Jorabagan P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026 (Sections 318(4)/61(2), BNS), i.e., whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

Court's answer

Taking into account the other materials available in the case diary, the fact that the allegations also have a civil profile, and the fact that prior to the FIR a suit for damages had been filed against the transporter, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and anticipatory bail is granted.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest, the petitioner is to 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.

Key takeaways

Release on anticipatory bail is subject to the further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 482, BNSS, 2023. Application (C.R.M.(A) 1315 of 2026, decided 18/05/2026, Jay Sengupta, J.) in connection with Jorabagan P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026 dated 03/04/2026 under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the BNS. The dispute arose out of a contract to supply materials to the Railways for a project in Goa; after the transport vehicle went missing, the petitioner's side itself lodged a theft FIR and the goods and vehicle were later recovered; a suit for damages was pending against the transporter, who is the de-facto complainant. Considering the case diary materials, the civil profile of the allegations and the pre-existing damages suit, the court found custodial interrogation unnecessary and allowed anticipatory bail — release on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount (one local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, conditioned on cooperation with the investigation and abstention from threatening or intimidating witnesses.

18/05/2026 D/L – 82 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed

C.R.M.(A) 1315 of 2026

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Jorabagan P.S case no. 41 of 2026 dated 03/04/2026 under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the BNS. In the matter of: Sreerupa Bhowmick ...Petitioner. Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee Ms. Dipika Basu Mr. Subhadip Chakraborty Ms. B. Roy …for the petitioner. Mr. Pratim Priya Dasgupta Mr. Amit Dey …for the de-facto complainant. Mr. Tapodip Gupta … Amicus. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner and others were supposed to supply materials to the Railways for a project in Goa. They arranged for the materials and the transport. However, the vehicle went missing. They could not deliver the goods in time. They lodged an FIR with an allegation of theft. Thereafter, the vehicle and the materials were recovered. A suit was also filed against the transporter being the de-facto complainant of the instant case for damages. After this and as a counter blast, the present FIR was registered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the incidents pertaining to the

2

present case are of November, 2025. Payments for such transport was not made by the present petitioner. However, the incidents which are being placed by the petitioner are for a second transaction, which happened in February, 2026.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the documents available in the case diary including the statements of witnesses. He submits that after filing of this application for anticipatory bail, an FIR has been registered against the present petitioner with similar allegations of non-payment of transport charges.

Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary, the fact that the allegations also have a civil profile and the fact that prior to this FIR, a suit for damages had been filed against the transporter, 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.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each 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 further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses.

3

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is

allowed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)