Calcutta High CourtCRM (A)/5013/2022dismissed as rejected

Ananda Majumder v. State Of West Bengal

2022-11-17Hon'Ble Justice Debangsu Basak,Hon'Ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi2 pages

17.11.2022 Serial no.5 Aloke CRM (A) 5013 of 2022 In re : An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with New Town Police Station Case No.

of dated 03.08.2022 under Sections 419/420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code. -AndIn the matter of : Ananda Majumder ... ... Petitioner Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Souvik Mitter, Advocate Ms. Rajnandini Das, Advocate Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. N. Ahmed, ld. APP Ms. Manasi Roy, Advocate ... ...For the State Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, Advocate ... ... For the de facto complainant Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits on instructions that, subsequent to the lodgment of the police complaint there was a reappraisal at the level of the bank whereupon the gold pledged as security was found to be genuine.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor refers to the materials in the case diary. He submits that the petitioner is gold appraiser and gold loans were disbursed on the pledge of gold which was found to be spurious.

Learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that on reappraisal, the gold pledged was found to be spurious. The petitioner is an appraiser of gold engaged by the de facto complainant for the purpose of apprising gold which a customer pledges for the purpose of obtaining gold loan. On reappraisal, the bank found the gold to be spurious. The bank is unable to recover the gold loan at present. Consequently, the police complaint was lodged The contention of the petitioner that on reappraisal, the gold was found to be genuine, is belied by the documents relied upon by the de facto complainant.

The complicity of the petitioner in the offences cannot be overlooked at this stage.

Consequently, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. CRM (A) 5013 of 2022 is dismissed.

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