Tapas Kumar Das v. The State Of West Bengal

24.12.2021 Serial no. 26 Dd (Through Video Conference) CRM 8796 of 2021 In re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Anandapur Police Station Case No. 13 dated 19.01.2020 (ACGR 272/2020) under Sections 120B/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

-AndIn the matter of : Tapas Kumar Das ... ...Petitioner Mr. Soumik Ganguly Mr. Rajib Ray, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Apurba Kr. Datta, Advocates ... ...For the State Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Seumya Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Kausik De, Mr. R. Ray, Ms. Mohini Majumder, Mr. Raghav Munshi, advocates .. ..For the de facto complainant Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The criminal complaint is an offshoot of a commercial transaction. There are several proceedings with regard to the dishonour of cheques . The petitioner is not connected with the legal entity with which the de facto complainant was transacting.

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is the elder brother of the person in whose name the goods were taken delivery of. He submits

that there are materials implicating the petitioner in the transaction.

De facto complainant is represented.

Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner and the nature of transaction and considering the materials in the case diary, the complicity of the petitioner in the transaction cannot be ruled out.

We are, therefore, not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

CRM 8796 of 2021 is, accordingly, rejected.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)