Dismissed¶14

Rajesh Singh v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC9 Jun 2026CRM (A)/1461/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS rejected in Bidhannagar (South) P.S. Case No. 99/2026 under Ss.318(4)/336(3)/338 BNS; allegations of forged letter used in Shillong tender (forged amount and signature), Defence-related work, non-response to S.35(3) BNSS notices; document-based investigation contention rejected; single judge (Jay Sengupta, J.), decided 09.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the materials in the case diary, including the allegedly forged letter relied upon in a Shillong tender (wrongly typed amount and forged signature), the fact that the work pertained to the Defence, and the petitioner's non-response to notices under Section 35(3) BNSS, the court did not consider this a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. ¶13

Rajesh Singh Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

09.06.2026 Court No.28 Item No.59 tbsr Reject

¶2

CRM (A) 1461 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bidhannagar (South) P.S. Case No. 99 of 2026 dated 08.05.2026 under Sections 318(4)/336(3)/338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶3

And

¶4

In the matter of: Rajesh Singh

¶5

….Petitioner. Mr. Krishan Roy Mr. Firdous Samim Ms. Gopa Biswas Ms. Ankita Ghosh Mr. Hasibur Rahaman Jamadar Mr. Ayush Majumder Mr. Rajosik Dutta Ms. Nurani Sultana …for the petitioner

¶6

Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, ld. APP Mr. Saswata Chatterjee ….for the State

¶7

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

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as

¶9

follows. The petitioner had a dispute with the WBLDCL over a contract, that was allotted to him. Although it was his claim that he had performed the contract, the same was disputed by the authorities. A suit was filed. In an arbitration proceeding, the petitioner obtained an injunction. However, it is alleged in the present FIR that when the petitioner applied for a tender in Shillong, he had relied on a forged letter. Actually, the amount of tender was only wrongly typed. In any event, this is a document-based investigation.

¶10

Learned APP representing the State relies on the case diary and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the

¶11

¶12

copy of the forged letter as also on the communication of the WBLDCL clearly stating that the document in question was fake. Not only was the amount mentioned wrong. Even the signature in the letter was forged. The work pertained to the Defence. The petitioner also did not respond to the notices issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

¶13

Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

¶14

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.

¶15

The presence of the Investigating Officer is noted and is dispensed with.

¶16

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.

¶17

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Rajesh Singh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Singh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhuma Mudi @ Jhuni Mudi Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Vindhani Sadik @ Sadik Vindhani Vs State of West Bengal

Abhijit Mondal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Sk Gulam Mustafa Vs State of West Bengal

Avdesh Aganu Yadav Vs State of West Bengal

Bijesh Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.