Malay Maity v. State Of West Bengal

15.09.2020 pg.

CRM 6542 of 2020 with IA No. CRAN 1 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Contain P.S. Case No.217 of 2020 dated 29.06.2020 under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In the matter of: Malay Maity ....Petitioner Mr. Arijit Pradhan ...for the Petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee Ms. Sujata Das ...for the State The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

The petitioner claims not to be a part of any firm or any association of individuals who may have duped the de-fecto complainant.

According to the complaint, a sum in excess of Rs.32 lakh had been invested by the complainant for the complainant to be appointed as 50 per cent partner of a partnership business. Upon the appointment not being made, the complainant lodged the complaint. The State says that though the investment was made with one Pritish Maity, all papers pertaining to how the funds may have been

siphoned off have been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.

Considering that a sum in excess of Rs.32 lakh may have been siphoned off, the petitioner's prayer for bail is declined. If, however, the money is refunded, the prayer may be considered. CRM 6542 of 2020 and the interim application therein are disposed of.

(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.)