Anup Majee vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 3115 Cal

28.05.2021.

ap C.R.R. No. 1318 of 2021 (via video conference)

In Re: An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on 24.05.2021.

AND

In the matter of: Anup Majee. ...Petitioner

Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Apan Saha.

...For the petitioner Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Mr. Samrat Goswami.

...For the CBI.

Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the petitioner, submits that his client is aggrieved by the

order dated 16th April, 2021 passed by the Special Judge,

Central Bureau of Investigation Court, Asansol.

By the said order, the Court refused to recall the order

dated 24th December, 2020 issuing warrant of arrest, order

dated 11th January, 2021 for proclamation and the order

dated 18th February, 2021 passed for attachment of

property. Notice of attachment was issued in respect of the

property of the petitioner at R.S. Plot No. 281, Block - AA,

Police Station - North Bidhannagar, District - North 24

Parganas.

In separate proceeding being W.P.A. No. 10457 of 2020, a

Single Bench of this Court had by order dated 3rd February,

2021 allowed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to

proceed with the investigation against the petitioner only

within the jurisdiction of the Railway Authorities in West

Bengal.

The said judgment of the Single Judge was challenged in

appeal by the CBI as well as the revisionist. A Division Bench

of this Court by order dated 12th February, 2021 passed in

M.A.T. No. 158 of 2021 had, inter alia, held that the

investigation of the CBI cannot be restricted only to the

properties under the Railways and permitted investigation,

inter alia, against the petitioner even outside the Railway

property, inter alia, within the State of West Bengal.

The judgment of the Division Bench dated 21st February,

2021 was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by

the revisionist in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.1620-

1621 of 2021. By order dated 25th March, 2021, the

petitioner was granted protection from arrest on terms. The

said protection was extended from time to time and subsists

even today.

Mr. Basu, Counsel for the petitioner would submit before

this Court that the warrant of arrest dated 24th December,

2020, order of proclamation dated 11th January, 2021 and

order of attachment of property dated 18th February, 2021

were not the subject matter of the proceeding before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, his client need not

have brought the same to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. It is also argued that the petitioner need not have

surrendered before the Special CBI Court in view of the

protection already granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India.

Mr. Dastoor, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation would

submit that since the petitioner is already enjoying

protection from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no

interference is called for at this stage.

This Court has considered the rival submissions of the

parties. The arguments of Mr. Basu may appear to be

academically sound. The warrant of arrest, order of

proclamation and order of attachment of property may

otherwise be unnecessary at this stage, in view of the

protection granted to the petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India. However, the protection granted to the

petitioner by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of

proceeding questioning the jurisdiction of the investigation,

inter alia, against the petitioner. The impugned orders of

warrant of arrest, proclamation and attachment were in force

at the time when the protection was granted to the petitioner

on 25th March, 2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The said orders have not been brought to the notice of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This Court is not satisfied

with the argument of Mr. Basu that his client need not have.

The orders of warrant of arrest, proclamation and

attachment have been passed in proceedings other than the

subject matter of those before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, where the protection to the petitioner was granted.

The Central Bureau of Investigation may file affidavit-in-

opposition to the revisional application within a period of one

month from date. Reply, if any, thereto, be filed within a

period of fifteen days thereafter.

Liberty to mention the matter after completion of

pleadings.

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this

order on usual undertakings.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)