Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 05 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: appellant Ram Bhanjan Mahato vs. State of West Bengal (respondent).
  • FIR Details: FIR No. 489 of 2026 lodged at Pradhannagar Police Station on 10 July 2026 under sections 316(5), 318(4), 338, 336(8), 351(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
  • Complaint Origin: Complaint filed by Vikrant Vimal alleging that Mahato, while serving as councilor of Ward No.3 and former Mayor‑in‑Council (MIC) of Siliguri Municipal Corporation, abused his position to grant benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (PMAY) to ineligible persons.
  • High Court Proceedings:
  • Pre‑arrest bail application under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was initially rejected by the Sessions Judge, Darjeeling.
  • Mahato approached the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri. A Single Judge granted ad‑interim protection on 19 August 2026, extended on 21 August 2026 and 10 September 2026 after status reports showed Mahato’s compliance and cooperation.
  • A different Single Judge finally rejected the anticipatory bail on 29 September 2026, stating prima facie possibility of embezzlement of public funds.
  • Solicitor General’s Submission: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, emphasized that beneficiaries who received PMAY benefits illegally were returning them, and therefore custodial interrogation of Mahato was required to uncover the siphoning of public funds, its utilization, and identification of beneficiaries.

Supreme Court Reasoning

  • The Court observed that Mahato had consistently cooperated with the investigating agency, responding to notices for production of bank account details.
  • The FIR was lodged after a substantial delay from the alleged offence date.
  • The Court held that the High Court erred in not granting pre‑arrest bail, given Mahato’s cooperation and the delay in FIR registration.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal succeeds; the High Court’s order dated 29‑09‑2026 is set aside.
  • It is directed that if Mahato is arrested in connection with the FIR, he shall be released on bail by the arresting/investigating officer or trial court, with terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
  • Mahato must continue to cooperate with further investigations and the trial, and must not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts to withhold disclosure to police or court.
  • The trial court retains the liberty to cancel bail if Mahato breaches any imposed conditions.
  • The observations and bail grant are expressly stated not to be findings on the merits of the case.
  • Any interim applications, if pending, stand disposed of.

Judgment Details

  • Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu.
  • Record of Proceedings: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.19069/2026, arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29‑09‑2026 in CRM(A) No.635/2026 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri.
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Deep Kabir, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR; Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.; Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
  • Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. Nishant Awana, Adv.; Mr. Suraj Kundu, Adv.; Mr. Amogh Pandey, Adv.
  • Order signed by Rashmi Dhyani Pant and Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Asst. Registrar‑cum‑PS Court Master (NSH).

Topics: Legal Bail, PMAY Misuse