Badal Chandra Ghosh v. The State Of West Bengal

25.09.2024 Court No.29 Item Nos. 17&18 sg CRM (A) 3222 of 2024 Avik Kumar Ghosh @ Abhik Kr. Ghosh Vs.

The State of West Bengal With CRM (A) 3224 of 2024 Badal Chandra Ghosh Vs.

The State of West Bengal In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the BNSS, in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 955 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malda.

Mr. Ranojoy Chatterjee Mr. Tamal Singha Roy For the Petitioner Mr. Sardar Shahin Imam Mr. Sufi Kamal For the State Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Krishan Ray Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Anamitra Banerjee For the defacto complainant 1.

The petitioners claim that they were partners of one Bani Engineering Co. They retired on 3rd May, 2024. Earlier, we directed the petitioners to produce the documents before the Investigating Officer as they have promised in their letter dated 14th September, 2024.

2.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the original partnership deeds are not available with the present petitioners. However, during investigation, the two documents have been produced namely, the Deed of

Retirement of one partner from the partnership deed dated 18th July, 2022 and the Deed of Retirement-cum-Reconstitution of partnership dated 3rd May, 2024.

3.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the dispute is arising out of a settlement of accounts of the partnership firm. It is alleged that the petitioners and the co-accused persons retired on 3rd May, 2024 as duly recorded in the deed of retirement-cum-reconstitution. However, in reality, the defacto complainant had retired from the partnership on 18th July, 2022. We do not find any such reflection in the subsequent reconstituted partnership deed. Moreover, there are incriminating materials showing that huge fund has been transferred in the name of the present petitioners from the said partnership firm without any settlement of accounts. The petitioners were unable to provide any documents before the Investigating Officer showing that pursuant to the settlement of accounts, the said amount is received by the petitioners or the co-accused.

4.

In view of the presence of such incriminating materials, we are not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioners. 5.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. (Soumen Sen, J.) (Uday Kumar, J.)