Dismissed¶15

Santu Routh v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC9 Feb 2026CRM (A)/4413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transit anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 rejected — Santu Routh v. State; Amritsar P.S. Cyber Crime FIR No. 18 of 2025 (03.06.2025), S. 318(4) BNS 2023 and ss. 66-C, 66-D IT Act; online banking link-click fraud, funds traced to petitioner's account; petitioner held not to satisfy Priya Indoria ((2024) 4 SCC 749) criteria for special benefit of transit anticipatory bail; application rejected, connected CRAN 1 of 2026 disposed of; Jay Sengupta, J., 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner has failed to indicate that he falls within the scope of the ratio laid down in Priya Indoria’s Case (2024) 4 SCC 749 and does not satisfy the criteria mentioned in that decision, so as to get the special benefit of transit anticipatory bail. ¶13

Santu Routh Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner satisfies the criteria laid down in Priya Indoria ((2024) 4 SCC 749) so as to get the special benefit of transit anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Considering the serious nature of allegations, the report, and the fact that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria mentioned in Priya Indoria’s decision, the Single Judge was not inclined to grant transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

Key takeaways

The application for anticipatory bail is rejected.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail (transit) application under Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Santu Routh, in connection with FIR No. 18 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 of Amritsar P.S. Cyber Crime, Amritsar City, Punjab (Sections 318(4) BNS, 2023; 66-C, 66-D IT Act), rejected. Petitioner's counsel submitted he had been duped purportedly by a bank employee and, being in dire need of a loan, had parted with his mobile phone and ATM card. State counsel, relying on the status report, alleged the petitioner was part of a cyber crime network: following a call regarding internet banking issues, the complainant was asked to click a link, upon which a huge sum left his account and was traced to the petitioner's account. Holding that the petitioner failed to fall within the scope of the ratio of Priya Indoria’s Case (2024) 4 SCC 749 and did not satisfy the criteria therein for the special benefit of transit anticipatory bail, and considering the serious nature of the allegations and the report, Jay Sengupta, J. declined transit anticipatory bail; the application for anticipatory bail was rejected. Connected application CRAN 1 of 2026 stands disposed of. Order dated 09.02.2026, Court No. 28.

¶1

09.02.2026 Court No.28 Item No.18 tbsr Reject

¶2

CRM (A) 4413 of 2025 CRAN 1 of 2026

¶3

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Amritsar P.S. Cyber Crime, Amritsar City, Punjab FIR No. 18 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 under Sections 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 & 66-C, 66-D of IT Act.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of: Santu Routh

¶6

….Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Gunjan Kumar Singh Mr. Vijay Verma Mr. Prakash Mishra Ms. Rushali Bairagi …for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Imam Ms. Puspita Saha …..for the State.

¶8

Status report filed by the Cyber Crime Police Station of the Amritsar Police Commissionerate as filed in Court is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been duped purportedly by the employee of a Bank. He was in dire need of loan. That is why parted with his mobile phone and ATM card for possible transaction.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the report and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner is a part of a Cyber Crime network. The complainant said that a call came from a number regarding certain internet banking issues. Then the victim was asked to click on a link. The moment he did so, a huge sum of money from his account went

¶11

¶12

away to another account. It has been found that the money which was taken out had gone to the petitioner’s account.

¶13

Apart from this, the petitioner has failed to indicate that he falls within the scope of the ratio laid down in Priya Indoria’s Case (2024) 4 SCC 749, so as to get the special benefit of transit anticipatory bail.

¶14

Considering the serious nature of allegations, the report and the fact that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria mentioned in Priya Indoria’s decision, I am not inclined to grant transit anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.

¶16

The connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 also stands disposed of.

¶17

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.

¶18

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Santu Routh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santu Routh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Sayed Ali Sardar @ Chhayedali Sardar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Nur Nejam Taj and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Nantu Sha @ Shah and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Sabera Khatun Mondal @ Sabera Bibi and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Mithun Roy @ Mithun Rai Vs State of West Bengal

Sulagna Kundu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.