Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/4134/2022dismissed as rejected

Kavita Yadav Kewalramani v. State Of West Bengal

2022-08-30Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Bibhas Ranjan De3 pages

30.08.2022 Ct. No. 29 KAUSHIK REJECTED C.R.M.(A) 4134 of 2022 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Charu Market Police Station Case No. 182 of 2021 dated 08.12.2021 under Sections 120B/406/420/409/24 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

And In Re : Kavita Yadav Kewalramani ...... petitioner Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Ram Narain Rajak Ms. J. Das ....for the petitioner Mr. Daanish Haque Mr. Abdul Zahid ....for the de-facto complainant Mr. Rudradipta Nandy Ms. Sonali Das ....for the State Petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was falsely implicated. The petitioner is a teacher of a school.

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, the petitioner is a Director of a company along with the deceased husband. The company is used for facet for the purpose of collecting monies from the members of the public.

Such monies are then transferred into such companies and then into the personal account of the petitioner and the account of the presently deceased husband of the petitioner. He submits that, the petitioner is involved in defrauding the members of the public in such a manner.

Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant submits that, a sum in excess of Rs.3.80 crores was made over to the petitioner through the company, in which she is a Director. The de-facto complainant is yet to receive the return of the entirity of the money made over or the promised return on investment.

The case diary suggest that the petitioner to use the facet of the company to collect money from the members of the public. The investigations are yet to be concluded. There are materials in the case diary suggesting connivance of the petitioner in defrauding the members of the public. Need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be overlooked. In such circumstances, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected and the application being CRM (A) 4134 of 2022 is dismissed. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)