Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tanmoy Banerjee vs Sunil Dubey on 27 September, 2023
C.R.M. (A) 3589 of 2023
27.09.2023
Sl.4 & 5
With
Court No.5 IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2023
(AD) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
(Allowed)
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Regent Park
Police Station Case No.231 dated 03.08.2023 under Sections
188/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And
In the matter of: Tanmoy Banerjee
....petitioner.
Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anand Kesari
Mr. Saumava Mukherjee
Mr. Subhankar Chatterjee
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Mainak Gupta
...for the State.
Mr. Phiroze Edulji
Mr. Arijit Bardhan
Mr. Avik Ghatak
Ms. Roustavi Mukherjee
Mr. Saibal Dasgupta
... for the de facto complainant.
with
C.R.M. (A) 3590 of 2023
With
IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2023
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Regent Park
Police Station Case No.231 dated 03.08.2023 under Sections
188/354/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And
In the matter of: Sunil Dubey
....petitioner.
Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anand Kesari
Mr. Saumava Mukherjee
Mr. Subhankar Chatterjee
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP
Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta
...for the State.
Mr. Phiroze Edulji
Mr. Arijit Bardhan
Mr. Avik Ghatak
Ms. Roustavi Mukherjee
Mr. Saibal Dasgupta
... for the de facto complainant.
Two applications for anticipatory bail are taken up for
analogous consideration as they emanate out of the same police
case.
The de facto complainant applied for being added in the
application for anticipatory bail.
Both the applications of the de facto complainant for being
heard in the applications for anticipatory bail are allowed for the
ends of justice.
Learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioners granted liberty
to amend the cause-title.
We heard the respective parties.
The two petitioners before us are employees of a finance
company. The de facto complainant is a relative of a person who
obtained loan from the finance company and defaulted in payment.
Proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act were
undertaken as against the secured assets. Possession was sought
to be taken of the secured assets. It is at the time of taking of
possession of the secured assets that, according to the de facto
complainant, an incident occurred in respect of which the police
complaint was lodged. The Court is informed that, so far as
immovable properties are concerned, possession was taken.
Possession of the movables is a subject-matter of proceedings under
Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act and is pending
before the Tribunal. The Court is informed that, the Tribunal heard
the application and reserved judgment.
State is represented.
Learned Advocate for the State submits that, the petitioners
did not comply with the notices issued under Section 41A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
We perused the case diary. There is a statement recorded
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Apparently, the incident is alleged to occur in presence of a
number of persons. A finance company was trying to recover its
secured assets through a process known to law, when the incident
is alleged to occur. The petitioners before us are employees of the
finance company.
Materials on record and in the case diary allows an inference
of a possibility of false implication in an attempt to settle scores for
taking measures under the SARFAESI Act.
In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant
anticipatory bail to both the petitioners.
We clarify that our order should not be construed to be a
decision on merits with regard to the SARFAESI proceedings.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the
petitioners, namely, Tanmoy Banerjee in CRM(A) 3589 of 2023 and
Sunil Dubey in CRM(A) 3590 of 2023 shall be released on bail
upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and on condition that both the petitioners will report before
the Investigating Officer as and when called for till the conclusion of
the investigation and on condition that the petitioners shall appear
on every date before the jurisdictional Court on and from the date
fixed for appearance of the accused and in default the jurisdictional
Court will pass appropriate order to secure the presence of the
petitioners in Court including cancelling the anticipatory bail
granted without further reference to this Court.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in
both the applications is allowed.
C.R.M. (A) 3589 of 2023 with IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2023 and
C.R.M. (A) 3590 of 2023 with IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2023 are, thus,
disposed of.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
