[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Abhijit Chatterjee vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:7879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 967 of 2026
Abhijit Chatterjee, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Sarajit
Chatterjee, Resident of North Singatala, English Bazar, Malda, P.O. &
P.S. English Bazar, District Malda, State-West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Central Bureau of Investigation ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate
---
04/10.04.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed in connection
with Regular Case No. 36(S) of 2017 EOW-R, for the alleged offence
registered under Sections 406, 420, and 120 B of the Indian Penal
Code and subsequently, charge sheet was submitted under Section
120B read with section 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation
Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 pending in the court of learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate,
C.B.I., Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is one of the directors of the Chit and Fund Company and
there is allegation of not paying the unpaid amount to the investors to
the extent of Rs.9,55,86,100/-. He has further submitted that out of
that Rs.3,38,88,165/- has been refunded .
4. During the course of hearing, he has submitted that now the
company has closed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
2026:JHHC:7879
reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and in the case of Siddharth Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 615 the
privilege of anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. He has
also submitted that anticipatory bail has been granted to the co-
accused namely Sujay Das in A.B.A. No. 8600 of 2023 vide order
dated 02.08.2024.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has
submitted that the petitioner was a director of a company who started
Chit-Fund business without getting the proper documents from R.B.I
and collected huge amount from common people. He submits that
even if part payment has been made, the same will not absolve the
petitioner who was admittedly the director of the company and since
the company has closed down there is no likelihood of refund of the
remaining amount to the investors. However, he submits that in the
petition there is no assertion that the petitioner has been served with
any notice under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. corresponding 35 of
BNSS and as to whether the petitioner has responded to such notice.
7. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
as per his instruction, the petitioner has co-operated and as & when
notice is issued to the petitioner, there is no reason that he will not co-
operate with the investigation. He has also submitted that till date no
warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, only summons
have been issued.
8. At this, the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted
that once the summons have been issued, there is no question of
issuance of any notice under the aforesaid provisions of BNSS to the
petitioner, asking him to participate in the investigation and apparently
the charge sheet has already been filed. He has submitted that only
summons have been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner may
participate and there is no apprehension of arrest as on date.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also submitted that
since the charge sheet has already been submitted, upon appearance
cum surrender of the petitioner, it may be left open to the court to pass
2026:JHHC:7879
appropriate order as per law and also in terms of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil
(Supra) and in the case of Siddharth (Supra).
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission and the facts as recorded above, this
anticipatory bail application is disposed of with an observation that
once the petitioner files surrender-cum-bail application pursuant to the
summons , his application will be considered as per law including the
ratio of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) and in the case of Siddharth
(Supra).
11. Let a copy of this be communicated to the court concerned
through 'FAX/E-mail'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
10.04.2026
Rakesh/-
Uploaded on:-13.04.2026
