The Calcutta High Court has refused anticipatory bail to Indranil Sen, a singer and former West Bengal minister, in a case linked to government tenders and a cultural organisation. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh dismissed the plea on October 15, 2026. Anticipatory bail is a court order that protects a person from arrest before it happens.
Background
The case began with information given by Joydip Mukherjee to the Bowbazar Police Station. He alleged that people were cheated in the name of religion between 2022 and 2024 through Mahanirban Road Mass Art Society, which allegedly claimed a false link with UNESCO to sell preview-show tickets. The case was registered on June 9, 2026, under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Sen held the information and cultural affairs, tourism and technical education portfolios until May 2026.
Senior Advocate Jishnu Saha argued that the FIR was vague and named no specific role for Sen. He said ticket sales were small and needed no government support, Sen’s wife was an office-bearer of the society, and permission for the UNESCO logo was documented. He added that Third Line Creation had won 40 to 45 tenders before Sen became minister, the case followed a change in government, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the case rests on documents and Sen is no longer a minister.
The Additional Advocate General told the court that government money was routed through shell organisations, including Mass Art. According to the State, GIDI Creation won a tender worth Rs 53.46 crore, passed the work to Third Line Creation and paid it Rs 50.31 crore. Third Line Creation then allegedly paid Rs 66 lakh to Mass Art, Rs 22.47 lakh to entities controlled by Sen’s daughter and Rs 128 lakh to Sen’s account. The State said the investigation was at an early stage.
After going through the case diary, the court found a nexus between Sen and the two companies. It said:
“The State’s claim that Petitioner has abused his official position while discharging his duties, at this stage, cannot be ruled out. Additionally, criminal investigation is never a complaint-specific investigation, and if, in course of investigation, the investigating agency has been able to unearth an offence, it is the duty of the investigating agency to carry out the investigation.”
Rejecting the plea, the court held:
“Having regard to the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case in respect of the relief(s) prayed for.”
