Amlan Biswas vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 558 Cal

27.01.2021 Item No.198 Ct.No.28 s.d.

rejected

C.R.M. 46 of 2021 (Via Video Conference)

In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

And

In the matter of : Amlan Biswas ... Petitioner.

Mr. Abhijit Ganguly Mr. Saryati Dutta ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, PP Mr. Sudip Ghosh Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ... For the State.

Mr. Amitava Karmakar Mr. Nilendu Bhattacharya Mr. Kapil Guha Mr. Suman Dey ...for the de facto complainant.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Sarsuna

Police Station Case No. 101 of 2020 dated 01-10-2020 under

Sections 120B/420/409/406 of the Indian Penal Code, the

present application has been filed.

Pursuant to the order dated 18th January, 2021, the

learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Calcutta has

submitted a report of the Investigating Officer of the case.

Let the report submitted by the SI of Sarsuna Police

Station through the learned Public Prosecutor, High Court,

Calcutta be kept with the record.

Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing on behalf

of the petitioner in CRM 46 of 2021 submits that another

accused who was also Chief Operating Officer and similarly

placed have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

He further submits that having regard to the nature

of allegations, the same makes out a civil dispute for

recovery of money and no case of cheating or criminal breach

of trust is made out.

The learned advocate for the petitioner further relies

upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of

Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U. P. and Anr., reported in 2020

SCC OnLine SC 75 and draws the attention of this Court to

paragraph 8 of the said judgment.

Mr. Mukherji, learned Public Prosecutor appearing

for the State submits that the petitioner is involved in two

other cases relating to Airport Police Station and Park Street

Police Station.

He further submits that the company is not notified

with the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the

amount which has been defalcated is Rs.1,84,87,848/-.

We have taken into account the submissions of both

the parties and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

which relates to a bail application.

Having regard to the fact that the present

application relates to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation

of the petitioner may be warranted in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, the prayer for

anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

The application being CRM 46 of 2021 is, thus,

disposed of.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)