Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Parambrata Roy vs Unknown on 21 May, 2025
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
21.05.2025 In the High Court at Calcutta Item No.DL24 Court No. 28 Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Asraf, AR(Ct.) Appellate Side REJECTED Case No. CRM (A) 1634 of 2025 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Basirhat Police Station case no.160 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025 under Sections 319(2), 338, 336(2), 340(2) and 341(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-AND-
In the matter of :
SRI PARAMBRATA ROY ......Petitioner For the Petitioner :
Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Mr. Rajib Mullick Ms. Sonia Mukherjee Mr. Subham Chatterjee .....Advocates For the State :
Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Ms. Chandreyi Dutta .....Advocates Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner had prayed for admission and sat in the test being the NEET UG, 2023 and obtained a rank. He had initially applied as a Scheduled Caste (SC) category candidate. Subsequently, he became a victim of fraud. An agent created certain documents, applied for Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate for him and got a Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate issued by the concerned authority. The petitioner is only about 21 years old.
Page 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the materials available in the case diary. She submits that when the petitioner found out that he would not get admission to a medical course under the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, he made an application before another Sub-Divisional Officer in whose jurisdiction he was not residing and prayed for issuance of Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate. He was able to obtain the same by producing false documents. He obtained a seat in the medical college using such Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificate.
Considering the serious nature of allegations and the materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM(A) 1634 of 2025 is rejected.
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.
( Jay Sengupta, J. )