The division judge bench of Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury and Justice I.P. Mukerji of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Prabha Surana Vs the State of West Bengal granted bail to the accused person alleged of committing an economic offense.
It was observed that human liberty is most valuable to every civilized human being. Liberty includes the right and opportunity to free movement without unreasonable restrictions, the freedom to talk, to be talked to, to write, to be written to, to express views, be influenced by the expression of views, to work, eat, rest, play, recreate and do activities becoming of a civilized human being, without interference from anybody or unreasonable interference from any state authority.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that an association of fraudulent persons was formed and it consisted of one Dilip Chand Kankaria, his wife Sudha Kankaria, their relative Surendra Bengani, and the members of the Surana family which included the petitioner and her husband Shanti Kumar Surana. Several crores of rupees were given by the general public, and some of it was sent to the petitioner's account.
The final goal was to misappropriate the money that was raised. In 2011, a brochure prepared and reportedly provided by Commercial Paradise Pvt. Ltd. invited the public to invest, allegedly misleading them into doing so. The petitioner claims that the business was founded in 2016—a number of years later. In light of this, the brochure may have been published in 2016 or later. According to the prosecution, would demonstrate that between 2007 and 2013, the petitioner and Dilip Chand Kankaria exchanged hundreds of crores of rupees in cash. After his passing, his wife Sudha took care of this operation, and her bank account would likewise show these transactions from 2014 to 2020.
Thereafter, the complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure. The Petitioner was charged under Section 3 of the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 for an offence that was allegedly committed in 2011.
The Petitioner was granted bail and the order was challenged by the defacto complainant by way of filing a SLP. The Apex Court remanded the matter back to the High Court.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the petitioner is accused of committing an economic offence. It pertains to the alleged theft of crores of money from the general population starting in 2011. It wasn't until 2020, ten years later, that the victim of misappropriation filed a complaint. By 2020, the petitioner would have eliminated whatever evidence it wished to erase in order to clear the accused of the crime. If she hadn't, there would be little prospect for its destruction right now. The investigative agency has had ten years to become aware of the offence and initiate legal action. it didn't.
Furthermore, it was observed that the investigation agency initiated an inquiry as soon as the criminal complaint was filed, seizing papers, monitoring all bank accounts, attaching them, and other actions. The investigation was finished, and charges were filed.
It was noted that more than 12 years has been passed and the accused has not absconded. Therefore, this indicates that there is little chance that the accused will abscond. Also, she even surrendered her passport to the investigation agency.
It was also noted that the prosecution has not even submitted that a supplementary charge sheet is being made ready. A simple claim that more inquiry is needed is insufficient unless some evidence is presented to the court showing that there are certain materials on which additional charges might be brought and that the accused is in a position to tamper with that evidence or otherwise interfere with the trial.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble High Court released the petitioner on bail subject to the condition that the accused shall appear before the trial court before every date of hearing and other conditions.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the bail application.
Case Title: Prabha Surana Vs State of West Bengal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury and Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji
Citation: CRM (DB) No. 4148 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Mr. Abhijit Chowdhury, Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwary, Advs
Advocates for the Defacto-Complainant: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Arnab Sardar, Mr. Anurag Sardar, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Advs
Advocates for the State: Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, Ld. PP, Mr. Neguive Ahamed, Ms. Jonaki Saha.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
