Jainal Abedin v. State Of West Bengal

21.09.2022 Serial no.11 Aloke CRM (A) 4483 of 2022 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Murshidabad Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 06 of 2022 dated 23.03.2022 under Sections 419/420/406/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

-AndIn the matter of: Jainal Abedin ... ... Petitioner Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, Advocate Mr. Arjun Samanta, Advocate ... ... For the de facto complainant Mr. T.D. Nandy, Advocate Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Advocate ... ...For the State Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there are civil disputes between the private parties. The de facto complainant engaged the petitioner to manage his funds. There was an agreement for payment of fixed remuneration. Such payment was not paid. The petitioner was falsely implicated.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the attention to the materials in the case dairy. He submits that the petitioner misappropriate funds belonging to the de facto complainant and his family members.

Learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant draws the attention to the order dated July 4, 2022 passed in WPA 9775 of 2022. He submits that the police are yet to make any arrest and any progress in the investigation.

There are materials in the case diary implicating the petitioner. The role played by the petitioner in the transactions requires investigations. The nature of the allegations does not rule out the requirement of the custodial interrogation.

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

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (A) 4483 of 2022 is dismissed.

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