Court finds need for further investigation after case diary indicates petitioner took money on promise of acting in a film, but neither performed nor refunded the amount
The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to petitioner Soham Chakraborty in a case involving allegations that money was taken on the representation of acting in a film, but the commitment was not fulfilled and the amount was not returned.
In an order dated October 14, 2026, Justice Debangsu Basak dismissed C.R.M. (A) 3535 of 2026 after examining the materials placed in the case diary. The Court noted that the available records showed a clear need for further investigation into the allegations.
According to the Court, the petitioner had allegedly taken money ostensibly for acting in a film. However, the petitioner neither acted in the film nor returned the money to the complainant. These circumstances weighed against the grant of pre-arrest protection.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Dipanjan Dutt and Mr. Soumodip Ghosh, while the State was represented by Mr. Abhijit Singh. Mr. Ranjan Chakrabarti appeared for the de facto complainant.
Justice Basak observed that, considering the gravity of the alleged offence, the materials in the case diary, and the petitioner’s involvement as emerging from the records, this was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The Court therefore rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.
The ruling underscores that anticipatory bail may be denied where the Court finds that investigation is still necessary and the allegations, supported by case diary materials, disclose serious misconduct involving financial transactions and unfulfilled representations.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail was refused where case diary materials disclosed need for investigation and showed that the petitioner had taken money on the representation of acting in a film, neither acted in the film nor returned the money.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Anticipatory bail.
