Bharat Maneklal Parekh v. State Of West Bengal
07.01.2026 Sl. No.09 NB CRM (A) 3545 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with South Bidhannagar PS Case No.137/2025 dated 18.07.2025 under Sections 120B/406/420/465/468/460 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of: Bharat Maneklal Parekh ... petitioner Mr. Sudip Patra, Mr. Prem Prakash.
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Baisali Basu, Mr. Samarjit Balial.
...for the State.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Sr.Adv., Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Mr. Avik Ghatak, Ms. Afreen Begum, Mr. Gaurab Mondal, Mr. Dishani Kanjilal.
...for the de facto complainant.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. No actual loss has been incurred by the de facto complainant. It was only a question of shares being pledged. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the company by the name of Jupiter Spun Pipes & Casting Pvt. Ltd. had Eight Lakh and odd shares in Magadh Spun Pipe Ltd. . These were pledged to them in 2012. In fact, the de facto complainant has the original share certificates. In 2018, the shares were shown standing in the name of Jupiter Spun Pipes & Casting Pvt. Ltd.. Surprisingly, in 2022, in a Return filed by Magadh Spun Pipe Ltd., the shares were shown to be in the names of others. Quite clearly,
forgery was committed and the shares were purportedly transferred in favour of certain other persons.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He relies on the report of ROC cum OL, Patna dated 02.01.2026 and the statement of the Company Secretary of the said Magadh Spun Pipe Ltd..
Considering the above and the other incriminating materials present in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)