Anunoy Sarkar @ Anunay Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anunoy Sarkar @ Anunay Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner to appear before the Court below on the next date (tomorrow) and, upon appearance, to act in accordance with the ratio laid down in CRM (A) 1689 of 2025 (Archana Bagla Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office); parties to act on a server copy of the order from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court below's order dated 22.05.2026 rejecting the petitioner's prayer to appear through his lawyer and directing personal appearance (with a fresh prayer for bail or bond) was arbitrary and unsustainable. +2 more

Court's answer

The instant application CRR 2589 of 2026 is disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner to appear before the Court below on the next date, i.e., tomorrow.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of his appearance before the Court below, the petitioner shall act in accordance with the ratio laid down by this Court in CRM (A) 1689 OF 2025 (Archana Bagla Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 2589 of 2026 (High Court, Calcutta; Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; decided 14.07.2026) — Anunoy Sarkar @ Anunay Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Anr.: The petitioner, aggrieved by the Court below's order dated 22.05.2026 rejecting his prayer to appear through a lawyer and directing him to appear in person with a proper prayer for bail or bond, argued that the order was arbitrary and mechanical; that a summoned accused may appear in person or through his Pleader; that the Investigating Agency never sought a warrant during the entire investigation, so custodial interrogation and any question of evading appearance did not arise; and that the Magistrate cannot adopt an oblique way of issuing summons and thereafter taking the accused in custody. Counsel relied on Archana Bagla v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, CRM (A) 1689 of 2025 (dated 10.03.2026), particularly Paragraphs 9, 10 and 16. Disposing of the application, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Court below on the next date (tomorrow) and, upon appearance, to act in accordance with the ratio laid down in CRM (A) 1689 of 2025.

14.07.2026 Sl. No.01. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29.

CRR/2589/2026

Anunoy Sarkar @ Anunay Sarkar Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Ankit Agarwala, Ms. Alotriya Mukherjee

…for the petitioner

In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2026 by which the Court below rejected the prayer made by the petitioner herein who prayed for appearance through lawyer and has directed him to appear before the Court at the earliest with a proper prayer for bail or bond so that he can consider his prayer in accordance with law.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is arbitrary and has been passed mechanically. He submits that once summons has been issued to the accused, he has the option either to appear in person or through his Pleader. He further submits that during entire investigation no prayer has been made by the Investigating Agency before Magistrate for issuance of warrant against the petitioner, and, therefore, learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not needed by the Investigating Agency and, as such, the question of the petitioner evading appearance in the said case does not and cannot arise. He further submits that under the law, learned Magistrate cannot adopt oblique way to bring the accused before the Court issuing summon, and thereafter take him in custody.

2

Learned Magistrate has earred in holding that the petitioner had tried to evade appearing in the said case by failing to appreciate that the Investigating Agency itself has never sought for issuance of warrant against the petitioner to ensure his appearance before them. He further failed to appreciate that passing a summoning order, he has unequivocally give the petitioner the option of being represented by a Pleader before the Court below and the petitioner’s exercising such option cannot be taken as evading appearance in the said case. In this context, he relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in Archana Bagla Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office being CRM (A) 1689 of 2025 dated 10.03.2026. In this context, he also relied upon Paragraphs 9, 10 and 16 of the said judgment.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the instant application being CRR 2589 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner to appear before the Court below on the next date, i.e. tomorrow and in the event of his appearance before the Court below, he will act in accordance with the ratio laid down by this Court in CRM (A) 1689 OF 2025 (Archana Bagla Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office)

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

( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )