Nanda Dulal Saha @ Raj Saha vs Unknown on 5 August, 2025

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Nanda Dulal Saha @ Raj Saha vs Unknown on 5 August, 2025

Author: Jay Sengupta

Bench: Jay Sengupta

AD 38
August 5, 2025
Ct. 28
SG
CRM(A) 1630 of 2025
CRAN 1 of 2025
Allowed
An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection
with Lake P.S. Case No.66 of 2024 dated 07.04.2024 under
Sections 120B/420/406/467/468/471/477A of the IPC.

And

In the matter of:

Nanda Dulal Saha @ Raj Saha
… petitioner

Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Maitrayee Chatterjee
… for the petitioner

Ms. Rituparna Ghosh
Ms. Ankita Paul
… for the State

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Rohan Ojha
Mr. Santosh Kumar Ray
Ms. Rituparna Sanyal
… for the de facto complainant

Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is a producer of films. The

petitioner and the de facto complainant virtually agreed that

two short films would be made on payment of Rs.60 lakhs.

But, the full payment was not made. The petitioner was

forced to sign on some documents, which now appear to

have been made into certain valuable agreements. Now, the

two films are practically ready, except the fact that the
2

dubbing and colour correction have not been done as the

entire payment was not made by the de facto complainant.

Learned senior counsel representing the de facto

complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail

and submits that there are undertakings given by the

petitioner about the wrongdoings that he practiced and

about making good the misappropriated money taken. One

cheque given by the petitioner in this regard bounced. There

is a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act over the same. The petitioner is

continuously threatening the de facto complainant.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail, relies on the statements of the witnesses

and submits that fake bills were submitted to show

expenses.

From a careful perusal of the case diary, it does not

appear that it was ascertained by the investigating officer

whether the bills in question were fake or not.

It also appears that a cheque given by the petitioner that

was dishonoured and is a subject matter of litigation in a

complaint case started by the de facto complainant under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Considering the materials available in the case diary and

the substantial civil flavour in the allegations and counter
3

allegations made by the petitioner and the de facto

complainant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on

bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten

thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of

whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down

under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and

on the further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate

with the investigation, shall meet the investigating officer

once a week till submission of report in final form, shall not

enter the jurisdiction of Lake Police Station except for

meeting the investigating officer or attending the

jurisdictional court for four months from this date and shall

not threaten or intimidate witnesses.

The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite

formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)