Calcutta High Court: In an application filed by Indranil Sen, former West Bengal Minister and erstwhile Chairperson of the West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging cheating, forgery and conspiracy involving government tenders and alleged diversion of public funds, Tirthankar Ghosh, J., rejected the anticipatory bail prayer, holding that, having regard to the merits of the case and the materials in the case diary, the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the relief sought.
Background
The application arose out of Bowbazar Police Station Case dated 9 June 2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The case originated from information alleging that Mass Art Society had cheated members of the public in the name of religion by falsely claiming an association with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to sell tickets for preview shows between 2022 and 2024. The investigation also concerned alleged irregularities in the award of government tenders and the movement of funds between entities associated with the petitioner and his family.
The petitioner contended that the allegations against him were vague and that no specific role had been attributed to him. He submitted that his association with Mass Art Society arose because his wife was an office-bearer and relied on documents concerning permission to use the UNESCO logo. In relation to the tender allegations involving Third Line Creation, he argued that the company had received tenders even before he assumed ministerial office. He contended that the case had been foisted on him because of a change in Government, that it was now based on materials different from those in the initial complaint, and that Third Line Creation had been awarded tenders on 40/45 occasions before he took charge as Minister. He further submitted that the sale of tickets and donor passes was minimal, that as a professional singer he had substantial earnings reflected in his declared assets, that the case rested on documents in the investigating agency’s custody, and that, as he was no longer a Minister, there was no possibility of tampering with evidence. The State alleged that the petitioner had abused his official position and that government funds had been routed through entities, including GIDI Creation, Third Line Creation and Mass Art Society, before allegedly reaching accounts associated with the petitioner and his family. The State submitted that only three companies were awarded tenders during the petitioner’s tenure, and that GIDI Creation, which allegedly had no infrastructure or skill for the work, was awarded a tender worth ₹53.46 crore, of which ₹50.31 crore was paid to Third Line Creation and ₹4.5 lakh to Mass Art. Third Line Creation allegedly paid ₹66 lakh to Mass Art and ₹22.47 lakh to ISCAPE and Myra, entities said to be controlled by the petitioner’s daughter, and ₹128 lakh was allegedly shown as transferred to the petitioner’s own account.
Analysis and decision
The Court observed that the State had demonstrated a nexus between the petitioner and GIDI Creation and Third Line Creation. It also took note of the fact that office-bearers of Mass Art Society included the petitioner’s wife and that persons associated with entities awarded tenders by the department concerned during Sen’s tenure were connected with the organisations under investigation.
The Court held that the allegation of abuse of official position could not be ruled out at that stage. It further observed that the investigation was not required to remain confined to the allegations in the initial complaint. Thus, taking note of the allegations that government funds had been diverted through the tender process and that the petitioner and his family had allegedly benefited, the Court observed that there were ‘trappings of corruption’, as government money was diverted through the tender process, which had enriched the petitioner and his family members, and that the petitioner, as the Minister in charge of the department, was primarily responsible..
Therefore, the petitioner had failed to make out a case for anticipatory bail and the Court dismissed the application.
[Indranil Sen v. State, CRM (A) 1704 of 2026, decided on 15-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ayan Poddar, Mr. Soham Dutta, Mr. Shounak Mondal and Ms. Gargi Mukhopadhyay for the petitioner
Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, learned Additional Advocate General; Mr. Kallol Mondal, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee and Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee, Advocates, for the State-respondent
Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate, for the de facto complainant.
