Dismissed¶19

Omar Faruque v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC17 Feb 2026CRM(M)/2027/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; cyber fraud; swindling of West Bengal student TAB subsidy of Rs.10,000/- per student; Omar Faruque; FIR No. 30 of 2024, Chandannagar Cyber Crime PS; SC No. 131 of 2025 / ST No. 26(9)/2025; Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), 317(4); Sections 66/66D IT Act, 2008; Section 439 CrPC; Section 483 BNSS, 2023; 441 days in custody; 2 of 53 witnesses examined; charge-sheet submitted; CRM(M) 2027 of 2025 dismissed; CRM(R) 52 of 2025 directions applied; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; Calcutta High Court; order dated 17.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The court found that transactions in the case entangle the petitioner with the chain of offence for illegally siphoning off the money. ¶15

Omar Faruque Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Omar Faruque, facing trial in SC No. 131 of 2025 (ST No. 26(9)/2025) arising out of FIR No. 30 of 2024, Chandannagar Cyber Crime PS, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), 317(4) and 66/66D IT Act, 2008, should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The court found that transactions in the case entangle the petitioner with the chain of offence for illegally siphoning off the money.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering that a social welfare scheme of the government was destroyed at the behest of cyber offenders of which the petitioner was allegedly a part, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶16

Key takeaways

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.ratio¶17
The directions earlier issued in CRM(R) 52 of 2025 would apply to the present petitioner.ratio¶18
CRM(M) 2027 of 2025 was dismissed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by Omar Faruque, accused in SC No. 131 of 2025 (ST No. 26(9)/2025) arising from FIR No. 30 of 2024 of Chandannagar Cyber Crime PS under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), 317(4) and 66/66D IT Act, 2008, concerning swindling of the whole of a State subsidy of Rs.10,000/- per student advanced for purchase of TABs. Although the petitioner had been in custody for 441 days, only two of the cited 53 witnesses had been examined and the charge-sheet stood submitted, the Calcutta High Court (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) declined bail, finding that transactions in the case entangled the petitioner with the chain of offence and that a government social welfare scheme had been destroyed at the behest of cyber offenders of which the petitioner was allegedly a part. The prayer for bail was rejected and CRM(M) 2027 of 2025 was dismissed, the directions in earlier CRM(R) 52 of 2025 being made applicable to the petitioner.

¶1

17.02.2026

¶2

Serial no. 7 [ G.S.D ]

¶3

CRM (M) 2027 of 2025

¶4

In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with SC No. 131 of 2025 in ST No. 26(9)/2025 being FIR No. 30 of 2024, Chandannagar Cyber Crime PS under Section 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), 317(4) and 66/66D IT Act, 2008.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : Omar Faruque

¶7

Mr. Amit Roy Mr. Tanmoy Biswas Ms. Antara Mukherjee Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Anupam Dasadhikari

¶8

… Petitioner(s) … for the Petitioner(s) … for the State-respondent(s)

¶9

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 441 days and there has been no progress in the trial. Learned advocate added that till date only two witnesses have been examined out of the cited 53 witnesses.

¶10

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that State would examine 23 witnesses.

¶11

The background of the case reflects that the State of West Bengal intended to subsidise and, to that effect, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per student was advanced for purchase of TAB of the students of the concerned school. However, the whole of the amount was swindled by a group of persons which is the subject-matter of investigation of the case.

¶12

¶13

The investigation, after facing the complicity involved in siphoning off whole of the amount, has finally reached to a destination where charge-sheet has been submitted.

¶14

Learned advocate for the petitioner claims to be innocent.

¶15

In the present case, there are some transactions obviously which entangle the petitioner with the chain of offence for illegally siphoning off the money.

¶16

Having considered that social welfare scheme of the government has been destroyed at the behest of some cyber offenders in which the petitioner has allegedly been a part of the same, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶17

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

¶18

Earlier, in CRM(R) 52 of 2025, there were certain directions, the same directions obviously would apply to the present petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, CRM(M) 2027 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶20

Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

¶21

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

¶22

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.