Hemant Sadashiv Bhujbal vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5832 Cal

September 1, 2023
AD 213
Court No.14
SG
                                      WPA 21198 of 2023

                                    Hemant Sadashiv Bhujbal
                                            vs.
                             The State of West Bengal and others
                                                                              .

Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das Mr. Debarshi Brahma Ms. Rupsa Sreemani ... for the petitioner Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra Mr. Amartya Pal ... for the State

This is an application under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for declaration that arrest of

the petitioner on 28.07.2023 in connection with Kasba

Police Station Case No.232 of 2023 was unauthorised as

a notice under Section 41A of the Code was not given in

terms of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar, (2014) 8 SCC

273 and also for a direction to inform as to how many

cases of similar nature have been started against the

petitioner.

Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

A report filed by the State is also taken on record.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits as

follows. An informant had filed an FIR before the

Bidhannagar North Police Station alleging that she had

not been given all the benefits that were supposed to be

given by the accused as per the agreement entered into

regarding the travel and tour service arranged by the

accused company of which the petitioner is a director. A

similar case was filed before the Kasba Police Station

being Case No.232 dated 13.06.2023 under Sections

120B/420/406 of IPC. Without serving a notice under

Section 41A of the Code as per the judgement of Arnesh

Kumar (supra), the police picked him up and forced him

to sign on a notice purportedly under Section 41A of the

Code. This scheme is continuing in several other similar

cases which are being registered at different police

stations which is causing serious harassment and agony

of the petitioner. At least a list of such cases should be

provided to the petitioner.

Learned advocate for the State relies on the report

and submits as follows. The records indicate that a

notice under Section 41A of the Code was indeed served

upon the petitioner in terms of the decision in Arnesh

Kumar's case (supra). Thereafter, the petitioner was

arrested. There is a list of 35 people who have lodged

their complaints before the police and the money involved

is about `50 lakhs. The police have already registered 5

cases which are indicated in the report.

I have heard the submissions and have perused the

writ petition and the report filed by the State.

The petitioner claimed that he was not served with a

notice under Section 41A of the Code in connection with

Kasba Police Station case. On the contrary, it is the

specific case of the police that such a notice was served

and it contains the signature of the petitioner.

This Court has no material to disbelieve the version

of the police that the notice under Section 41A was not

served on the petitioner in time.

If the petitioner has committed more offences than

one involving different victims, he would have to face

different number of cases. It appears that the five cases

have been started before different police stations against

the petitioner. The petitioner has been served a copy of

the report, which contains the case numbers.

In view of the above, no further order need be passed

in this case.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

[ Jay Sengupta, J. ]