Pradeepto Mazumder@Pradipta Majumder v. State Of West Bengal

27.01.2021 Item No.202 Ct.No.28 subha rejected C.R.M. 147 of 2021 (Via Video Conference) In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

And In the matter of : Pradeeto Mazumder @ Pradipta Majumder ... Petitioner.

Mr. Abhijit Ganguly Mr. Saryati Dutta ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Soumik Ganguli ... For the State.

Mr. Amitava Karmakar Mr. Suman De Mr. Debanshu Ghorai Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick Mr. Kapil Guha Mr. Nilendu Bhattacharya ...for the de facto complainant.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Sarsuna Police Station Case No. 101 of 2020 dated 01-10-2020 under Sections 120B/420/409/406 of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been filed.

Pursuant to the order dated 18th January, 2021, the learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted a report of the Investigating Officer of the case.

Let the report submitted by the SI of Sarsuna Police Station through the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta be kept with the record.

Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CRM 147 of 2021 submits that the petitioner is a Director of the Company and the Chief Operating Officer have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

He further submits that having regard to the nature of allegations, the same makes out a civil dispute, which would make out a case for recovery of money and no case of cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out. The learned advocate for the petitioner further relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U. P. and Anr., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 75 and draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the said judgment.

Mr. Bapuli, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is involved in two other cases relating to Airport Police Station and Park Street Police Station.

He further submits that the company is not notified with the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the amount which has been defalcated is Rs.1,84,87,848/-.

We have taken into account the submissions of both the parties and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which relates to a bail application.

Having regard to the fact that the present application relates to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application being CRM 147 of 2021 is, thus, disposed of.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)