Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/216/2023dismissed as rejected

Masud Reza v. State Of West Bengal

2023-01-17Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi2 pages

C.R.M. (A) 216 of 2023 17.01.2023 Sl.44 Court No.29 (AD) (Rejected) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kharagpur G.R. Police Station Case No.61 of 2022 dated 15.09.2022 under Sections 419/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And In the matter of: Masud Reza ....petitioner.

Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Mr. Ghazala Firdaus Md. Zeeshan Uddin Ms. Amrin Khatoon Mr. Mithun Mondal Sk. Saidullah ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mr. Avik Ghatak ...for the State.

Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to the contents of the First Information Report. He submits that the petitioner received a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Three other persons who received notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were arrested. Therefore, the petitioner is also apprehending arrest in the present police case although the petitioner is in no way involved in the present police case.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that although the police case was registered on the basis of the written complaint as contended on behalf of the petitioner, investigations revealed starling facts. Petitioner is a part of a racket which collects money on the promise of providing job. He draws the attention of Court to the materials in the case diary and submits that there is a

nexus between the petitioner and the bank account where a portion of the collected money was stored.

There are materials in the case diary implicating the petitioner.

The investigations are yet to be concluded.

Apparently, the petitioner is involved in a racket of extracting money from unsuspecting members of the public on the promise of granting job.

In such circumstances, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

C.R.M. (A) 216 of 2023 is dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)