No protection from arrest for now: Indranil Sen Anticipatory Bail is rejected, with the Calcutta High Court noting that the State has shown a nexus between the former Minister and entities that allegedly routed money to a society whose office-bearers included his wife.
Kolkata: Former West Bengal Minister Indranil Sen has failed to obtain anticipatory bail from the Calcutta High Court in a case registered at Bowbazar Police Station, Kolkata, over allegations of cheating in the sale of Durga Puja pandal preview tickets. The Court held that the State has demonstrated a nexus between him and entities allegedly routing money through a society called Mass Art [Indranil Sen v. State of West Bengal].
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh passed the order on October 15, 2026, in CRM (A) 1704 of 2026, an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha appeared for Sen, and Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar for the State.
Why the Court declined protection
Justice Ghosh found that the State had been able to demonstrate a nexus between the petitioner and two entities, GIDI Creation and Third Line Creation. He also noted that the office-bearers of Mass Art Society included the petitioner’s wife as well as persons running the entities that were awarded tenders. The claim of abuse of official position could not be ruled out at this stage, the Court held, and added:
“There are trappings of corruption, as government money was diverted through tender process.”
Answering the argument that no role was attributed to Sen, the Court said that a criminal investigation is never a complaint-specific investigation, and that it is the duty of the investigating agency to carry out the investigation if an offence surfaces during inquiry. Concluding on the plea, the Court said:
“I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case.”
The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected and CRM (A) 1704 of 2026 was dismissed. The order grants no interim protection. Parties may act on a server copy of the order from the High Court’s website, and an urgent certified copy is to be supplied on application.
The FIR behind the petition
The plea arises from Bowbazar Police Station Case No. 102 of 2026, registered on June 9, 2026, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint, by Joydip Mukherjee, alleges that between 2022 and 2024 people were cheated in the name of religion through an organisation that allegedly misrepresented an association with UNESCO while selling preview-show tickets for Durga Puja pandals. Sen held the cultural affairs and tourism portfolios in the previous Trinamool Congress government. The Enforcement Directorate has also questioned him about financial transactions linked to Mass Art, and central agencies searched several locations linked to him on September 30.
All of this is allegation. It is untested, the High Court has not tried the case, and the presumption of innocence applies to Sen. The Court’s observations were made only to decide whether he should be protected from arrest.
The arguments
Sen’s side argued that no specific role or overt act was attributed to him, that the allegations were vague, and that he had been implicated after a change of government. The State’s reply was that he had abused his official position and diverted government funds through Mass Art, which it described as a shell used to route or park money.
What the order signals
An anticipatory bail court does not decide guilt. It asks whether custodial interrogation or arrest may be warranted on the material before it, and here the finding of a prima facie nexus with the entities at the centre of the money trail weighed against Sen. The Court’s remark that an investigation is not confined to the four corners of a complaint also indicates that officials accused of misusing public office cannot rely on the narrow wording of an FIR to avoid questioning.
Both sides’ positions remain open for the investigation and any trial. Sen’s contention that the case is a product of a change of government was recorded, and the Court did not rule on it, finding that the material before it was enough to decline protection at this stage.
Case Title: Indranil Sen v. State of West Bengal [CRM (A) 1704 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, Calcutta High Court
Date of Order: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha with advocates Ayan Poddar, Soham Dutta, Shounak Mondal and Gargi Mukhopadhyay for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar, Public Prosecutor Kallol Mondal and advocates Aditya Tiwari, Moyukh Mukherjee, Sayan Mukherjee and Koustav Lal Mukherjee for the State