CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
13.08.2019
C.R.M. 6375 of 2019
tkm/ct 28
sl no. 20
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.7.2019 in connection with Ballygunge P.S  case no. 27 of 2019 dated 1.3.2019 under sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the IPC
And
Allowed
In Re : Harish K. Madan …… petitioner
Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saryati Datta
…… for the petitioner
Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, ld PP
Mr. Sudip Ghosh
…… for the State
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. A. Ghatak
…… for the de facto complainant
Petitioner submits that co-accused Sisir Agarwal has been granted pre-arrest bail and the petitioner stands on the same footing as the said co-accused person. Further investigation does not reveal any incriminating materials so as to justify the rejection of his prayer for pre-arrest bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that co-caused Sarat Agarwal was arrested in this case and further investigation reveals that accounts and other documents relating to M/s. Intimate Fasions India Pvt. Ltd., a non-existing company appear to be forged. Co-accused who has been granted pre-arrest bail are not co-operating with investigation.
Learned lawyer for the de facto complainant submits by adopting similar modus operandi other entities have also been cheated by the petitioners. Civil suits have been filed against the petitioner over such issue.
We have considered materials on record. There is a pending dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant over the affairs of M/s. Sishir Exports (P) Ltd. and the de facto complainant had shareholdings in the said company since 2016.
In view of the fact that the de facto complainant had share holding and involvement in the affairs of the aforesaid company which is the holding company of M/s. Intimate Fashions India Pvt. Ltd., alleged non-existence firm, we had granted pre-arrest bail to co-accused Sisir Agarwal. Investigation throws some doubt with regard to documents and/or papers relating to the said firm. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is a matter to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of the proceeding whether the de facto complainant was wholly unaware of the activities of the petitioner in the alleged transaction. Status of the de facto complainant, who appears to have considerable interest in the holding firm, cannot be at par with other entities who have filed civil suits against the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any of the other entities have initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and others. With regard to the allegation that the co-accused persons have not co-operated with investigation, we refrain from making any observation with regard thereto as they are not before us and no application for cancellation of their pre-arrest bail has also been filed before this court till date.
Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a week while on bail until further orders and shall deposit his passport to the instigating agency within a period of seven days from date and that the petitioner shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.
The application being CRM 6375 of 2019 is disposed of.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
(Manojit Mandal, J.)