Subarna Dutta and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2026)

Subarna Dutta and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest, release on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC 1973 / Section 482(2) BNSS 2023 conditions, with further conditions to co-operate with the investigation and not threaten or intimidate witnesses; petitioner no.2 to meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of report in final form; application disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 04 of 2026 under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the BNS 2023.

Court's answer

Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Ratio / Principle

Basis for dispensing with custody: the dispute is between two Directors and the CEO of a Company and bulk of relevant documents have already been seized by the police.

Key takeaways

In the event of arrest, the petitioners are to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC 1973 / Section 482(2) BNSS 2023 conditions and further conditions of co-operation with investigation and not threatening or intimidating witnesses.ratio¶11
Petitioner no.2 shall meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – allowed. Application in connection with Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 04 of 2026 dated 03.01.2026 under Sections 318(4)/61(2) of the BNS 2023, founded on the allegation that sums were taken out of a company's account; petitioners described as a Director of the company and her husband, an IT expert who brought clients; defence pleaded a dispute over control and management between two Directors and the CEO and that no notice under Section 35(3) had been issued; de facto complainant and State opposed, the latter relying on seized documents, bank statements and witness statements. Held: considering the case diary and that bulk of relevant documents had already been seized, custodial interrogation of the petitioners was not required. Bail granted: bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to Section 438(2) CrPC 1973 / Section 482(2) BNSS 2023 conditions, co-operation with investigation and non-intimidation of witnesses; petitioner no.2 to meet the Investigating Officer once a fortnight till submission of report in final form. (Jay Sengupta, J.; 11.02.2026)

11.02.2026 Court No.28 Item No.42 ssi

CRM (A) 202 of 2026

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 04 of 2026 dated 03.01.2026 under Sections 318 (4)/61(2) of the BNS 2023.

And In the matter of: Smt. Subarna Dutta & another. …. Petitioners. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Mrs. Sushmita Paul Mr. Amaan Deep Gupta Ms. Sneha Ghosh …for the petitioners Mr. Prabir Adhya …for the de facto Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP Ms. Nandini Chatterjee ..for the State

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioner no. 1 was the Director of a company along with the de facto complainant. The petitioner no.2, her husband, was an IT expert. He used to bring clients for the concerned company. A dispute subsequently arose regarding control and management of the company. It has now been falsely alleged that certain sums of money were taken out from the company’s account by the petitioners. Till date, no notice under Section 35 (3) has been issued to the present petitioners.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that money has indeed been taken out by the accused persons.

2

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the documents seized, the bank statements and the statements of witnesses.

Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that the dispute in question is between two Directors and the CEO of a Company and bulk of relevant documents have already been seized by the police, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

In the event of arrest, the petitioners 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 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 conditions that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner no.2 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.)