AD 56 June 15, 2026 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 1534 of 2026 Reject An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Barasat Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024 under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/316(2) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Sadananda Sarkar … petitioner Mr. Jayanta Samanta … for the petitioner Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay … for the State Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He had cooperated with the investigation by responding to the notice issued. Learned counsel for the State relies on the case diary and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that this is a digital arrest scam. A sum of Rs. 6.7 lakhs was extorted from the informant. There are 31 similar instances where a total sum of Rs.3.75 crores was taken in relation to fake digital arrest. All the money was deposited in the account of a Trust where the present petitioner is the Chairman. Thereafter money was circulated into different accounts. The same has not been recovered yet. The petitioner afterwards did not respond to the notice. Moreover, a charge of extortion has been added subsequently. 2 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.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)

AD 56 June 15, 2026 Ct. 28 SG CRM(A) 1534 of 2026 Reject An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Barasat Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.32 of 2024 dated 09.09.2024 under Sections 319(2)/318(4)/316(2) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of: Sadananda Sarkar … petitioner Mr. Jayanta Samanta … for the petitioner Mr. Sagar Saha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay … for the State Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He had cooperated with the investigation by responding to the notice issued. Learned counsel for the State relies on the case diary and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that this is a digital arrest scam. A sum of Rs. 6.7 lakhs was extorted from the informant. There are 31 similar instances where a total sum of Rs.3.75 crores was taken in relation to fake digital arrest. All the money was deposited in the account of a Trust where the present petitioner is the Chairman. Thereafter money was circulated into different accounts. The same has not been recovered yet. The petitioner afterwards did not respond to the notice. Moreover, a charge of extortion has been added subsequently. 2 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.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)