The court permits bail when the prosecution's claims are unsupported by specific evidence and the petitioner has been incarcerated for a considerable time without trial.

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Akanksha Rai, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 05-12-2025 By means of this bail application, petitioner, who is in-

volved in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. case no. 39 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(3), 318(4) of B.N.S. , seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

2. Heard Ms. Akanksha Rai, learned counsel for the peti-

tioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, learned APP representing the State.

3. As per prosecution case, the informant got the First In-

formation Report lodged against the petitioner alleging inter alia that petitioner has assured his son that he could get him a job in the Custom department but for this he has to pay Rs eight lakhs. His son believing his words gave a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- to the petitioner. It is also alleged that after some days his son received a joining letter by post and thereafter petitioner further taken Rs.

5,96,000/- on the pretext of joining and sent him to Calcutta Custom department, where he came to know that said appoint-

ment letter was forged.

4. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of a concocted story set up by the com- plainant. In fact, no such incident took place as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted that in fact, uncle of the pe- titioner was seriously ill, therefore, he had borrowed Rs. 2,04,000/- from the son of the complainant on different dates which is mentioned in paragraph 11 of the bail application. Much emphasis has been given by contending that since a false story has been set up by the informant therefore, specific date of transaction has not been disclosed in the FIR. It is also pointed out that even during course of investigation when statement of complainant and his son was recorded, in which also they have not specified that on which date he had given a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- to the petitioner. So far as alleged payment of remain- ing amount of Rs.596000/- is concerned, it is argued that there is no evidence of said transaction between the parties concerned. The said allegation is wholly false and against the evidence on record. As per disclosure made in paragraph 3 of the bail appli-

cation, the petitioner has criminal history of one case in which he is on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner is languishing in jail since 25.08.2025 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in F.I.R.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that it is not in dispute that specific date of alleged transaction of Rs. 2,04,000/- has not dis- closed in the FIR. Whereas as per the case of the petitioner he had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- on 11.07.2025, Rs. 40,000/- on 10.08.2025, Rs. 40,000/- on 10.08.2025, Rs. 10,000/- on 10.08.2025, Rs. 9,000/- on 10.08.2025, Rs. 50,000/- on 15.07.2025, Rs. 45,000/- on 17.08.2025. As such petitioner has accepted the fact of taking a sum of Rs. 2,04,000/- from the complainant but purpose of taking said money is disputed. Charge sheet has been submitted. In para 14 of the bail applica- tion, petitioner has stated that out of said amount of Rs. 2,04,000/-, the petitioner has paid /return total Rs. 1,25,000/- to the complainant through bank transaction and h