Shri T.R.Rajendran v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM[DB]/2/2023 In Re: An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the Central Crime Station, South Andaman, Crime Case (FIR No.0050) 08.12.2022 under sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case No.903 of 2022) And Shri A.Zaheed .... Petitioner Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Salim Mohammed .. for the State January 25, 2023 [SR] Item No.1 The petitioner is said to have cheated as many as 15 persons named in the FIR.

Mr.

KMB Jayapal, learned advocate representing the petitioner/accused, submits that though the name of the petitioner has been incorporated in the FIR, but, he is not the principal accused, and every transaction, pertaining to the alleged cheating, has been made without his conscious knowledge. The alleged transaction was held in the way back in 2013/2014 and it is a delayed F.I.R. It is further submitted by Mr. Jayapal that the petitioner is a government servant, and is now working as Assistant Engineer, APWD, Kamorta. Since he is a public servant and suffers from some allegations relatable to civil in nature, which, according to Mr. Jayapal, has no substance, the prayer for anticipatory bail may be considered. It is also submitted by Mr. Jayapal that there has been part payment made by the principal accused issuing cheques, and for the dishonor of the cheques, the principal accused has suffered cases

under Negotiable Instruments Act instituted, at the instance of some of the informants, disclosed in the FIR.

Learned Public Prosecutor has produced C.D before us and, upon raising serious objection against the prayer of anticipatory bail, submits that there has been huge amount duped aggregating to Rs.88,00,000/- .

It is further submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is the mastermind of the alleged cheating, and some of the documents though prepared and subsequently presented before the Registering Authority was withdrawn at the instance of the present petitioner/accused.

Having considered the submission of both sides and the incriminating materials already collected in the C.D, we find reasons to refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail at this initial stage of investigation.

Criminal miscellaneous application, being CRM(DB)/2/2023, is thus dismissed.

Let the C.D be returned.

( Subhasis Dasgupta, J. ) ( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )