Ramkrishna Mandal v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

22.04.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Item No.DL26 Court No. 28 Asraf, AR(Ct.) REJECTED CRM (A) 1218 of 2025 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with CBI EO-IV FIR No.RC1/E/17-EOIV-Kol(RC - 2252017E0001) dated 23.05.2017 under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of IPC resulted in Original Charge Sheet No.1/2020 dated 17.01.2020 under Sections 420/409/477A/120B of IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978 and Supplementary CS no.10 of 2023 dated 17.08.2023 under Sections 411, 414, 420 and 409 of IPC read with Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes(Banning) Act, 1978 originally arising out of Diamond Harbour PS case no.444 of 2013 dated 11.08.2013 under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC.

-andIn Re : RAMKRISHNA MANDAL ......Petitioner For the Petitioner :

Mr. Arindam Jana Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee .....Advocates For the CBI :

Mr. Amajit De, Special PP .....Advocates Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is a 69 year old man suffering from different ailments. The present FIR was lodged in 2013. The Central Bureau of Investigation took over investigation in 2017 and a chargesheet was submitted in 2020 against three accused. The petitioner's name transpired along with those of two others only in 2023 when a supplementary

chargesheet was submitted. For a long time till 2024 the petitioner was in custody in connection with another case. Two other similarly circumstanced accused were granted bail by the Sessions Court. The wives of two directors were granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits as follows. The petitioner is a director of a chit fund company. In a similar matter involving a chit fund company which defrauded several persons by taking money from them, the petitioner was in custody for a very long time. In the instant case, more than Rs.75 crores have been collected by the accused. So far as the present petitioner is concerned there is a bank transfer to the tune of nearly Rs.2 lakhs. However, the petitioner was kingpin in the said other case and is directly involved as a director of the chit fund company in the present case as well. The petitioner does not stand on the same footing as the wives of the directors who were granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

Considering the incriminating materials appearing against the petitioner the role ascribed to him and his criminal antecedent, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM(A) 1218 of 2025 is rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

( Jay Sengupta, J. )