The Calcutta High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Dhrubajyoti Bose in connection with a case registered at Tala Police Station, observing that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate the statutory requirements necessary for invoking Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with organised crime.

The case arose from an FIR lodged on the basis of a complaint by a local MLA concerning alleged encroachment of around two bighas of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) land by Tala Park Prottoy, a committee associated with Durga Puja celebrations.

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee noted that Section 111 BNS was not an ordinary provision relating to cheating, extortion or land grabbing, but concerned organised crime. The Court found that there was no material to show that any charge-sheet had been filed against Bose during the preceding ten years, as required under the provision's definition of "continuing unlawful activity."

According to the allegations, the committee had, since 2018, allegedly encroached upon the land, demolished a boundary wall, iron gate and grill, and fraudulently obtained an electricity connection in the name of Tala Park Association. It was also alleged that part of the land remained occupied, depriving local children of its use as a park or playground.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 111(4), 270, 287, 324(3) and 329(3) of the BNS. Section 308(5) was subsequently added on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation, alleging that Bose had extorted money from various persons under the guise of collecting contributions for the Puja at different times between 2021 and 2025.

Appearing for Bose, Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha argued that the case was politically motivated and had been initiated following a change of political regime in May 2026. He also pointed to the delay in registration of the FIR and contended that there was no material demonstrating Bose's involvement in any organised crime syndicate or any continuing unlawful activity.

The Court noted that Section 111(1) BNS contemplates continuing unlawful activity, including extortion, land grabbing and economic offences, committed by a person or group acting in concert as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on its behalf, through violence, threat, intimidation, coercion or other unlawful means to obtain material or financial benefit.

The Court further referred to Explanation II to Section 111, under which "continuing unlawful activity" involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken as a member of or on behalf of an organised crime syndicate, in respect of which more than one charge-sheet has been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years.

"Materials on record indicates that, in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate any material to show that any charge-sheet had ever been filed against the petitioner during the preceding ten years, at least as on date," the Court observed.

It also recorded that the parties had jointly submitted that KMC had dismantled the structure standing on the land, removed the temporary structures and taken possession of the property.

"At least as on date, the prosecution has not been able to place any prima facie material to demonstrate that any of the other statutory requirements contemplated under Section 111 of the BNS have been satisfied," the Court said.

On the allegation of extortion, the Court observed that to constitute the offence, it was necessary to establish that a person was put in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly induced to deliver property.

The Court noted that the FIR contained no allegation of extortion and that such allegations subsequently emerged through witness statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

It further found that there was no material in the case diary showing that Bose was a member or office-bearer of the Puja Committee, nor were there documents showing that he had received money from any person.

The State had relied upon a bank transaction showing that Bose had deposited Rs 5 lakh by cheque into the Puja Committee's account. The Court, however, noted that apart from this transaction, no document had been shown indicating that Bose had taken money from any person.

"There was no contemporaneous allegation that any person had been forcibly made to part with money, either in the guise of contribution or otherwise," the Court observed.

The Court also relied upon the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., while considering the subsequent introduction of allegations through statements recorded during investigation.

It held that the Investigating Officer had already recorded witness statements and collected bank statements and other relevant materials, making the possibility of Bose tampering with evidence remote. The Court also found no material demonstrating the necessity of custodial interrogation for eliciting further evidence.

"Therefore, taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the cumulative effect of the materials on record, and the fact that the Investigating Officer has already recorded the statements of the witnesses and collected the bank statements and other relevant materials, thereby making the possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence remote," the Court held.

The State had opposed anticipatory bail, relying on Bose's alleged criminal antecedents and alleging that he had, in connivance with a Minister of the erstwhile political party, misappropriated substantial public money. Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sharad Sehggal v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court distinguished Sharad Sehggal, noting that 22 FIRs had been registered against the petitioner in that case.

Accordingly, the Court directed that in the event of arrest, Bose shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom must be local, subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS. He was also directed to meet the Investigating Officer once every fortnight until submission of the charge-sheet.

Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha appeared for Bose, assisted by Advocates Ayan Poddar, Soham Dutta and Shounak Mondal. Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder appeared for the State, assisted by Advocates Aditya Tiwari and Sayan Mukherjee.

Click here to read order