Karnataka High Court
Smt Rimpa Chakraborthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2022
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6383/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RIMPA CHAKRABORTHY
W/O PRATEEK CHAKRABORTHY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A NO.106/15/15
SARKARAPAR,RAHATALA ROAD
WARD NO.3, CIRCLE-2, P S BEJPUR
NORTH PARAGANA 24 DISTRICT
KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-743134.
2. SRI DILIP KUMAR CHOUDHURY
S/O RAMACHANDRA CHOUDHURY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/A NO.31, CENTRAL ROAD,
ANANDA PURI, NORTH VIEW APARTMENT
FLAT NO.1, N C PUKKUR
KOLKATA-700122, WEST BENGAL.
3. SMT ARPITA CHAKRABORTHY
W/O SRI PRASHANTH CHAKRABORTHY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A NO.106/15/15
SARKARAPAR, RAHATALA ROAD
WARD NO.3, CIRCLE-2
P S BEJPUR, NORTH PARAGANA 24 DISTRICT
KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-743134
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA B J., ADV.(PH))
[
2
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY C O D POLICE
F I U CID,CARLATON HOUSE
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP.)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.36/2017 (SPL.C.C.NO.835/2018 ON THE FILE OF XCI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH92),
BENGALURU) REGISTERED BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
406,409,420,120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 9 OF
KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 2004.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners/accused
Nos.11, 12 and 18 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for
granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.36/2017
registered by the High Grounds Police Station,
Seshadripuram Sub-Division for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B and
149 of IPC and Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2008. Now the investigation has taken
place and charge sheet filed by the C O D Police,
Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one
Murthy, who is said to be one of the Director, has filed
a private complaint against these petitioners to the
Police under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In turn, the Police
have registered a case and took up the investigation.
It was further alleged that accused No.1 said to be the
Managing Director along with petitioners, have
collected the huge investment to the tune of more than
Rs.60.00 crores and they have cheated the public.
After registering the case, the Police have arrested
accused No.1 and other accused persons and they have
been apprehending their arrest in the hands of the
Police for having committed non-bailable offences.
Hence, they are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners are innocent and they have been
falsely implicated in the case. They are only signatory
as Directors and they do not know anything about the
offences committed by the main accused. The
properties of the company were already seized by the
Police in Kolkata and Madhya Pradesh in different
crimes. The petitioners are relatives of the main
accused and petitioner No.1 is said to be the daughter-
in-law of accused No.1. Hence, he prayed for allowing
the petition for granting the anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for
the State seriously objected the bail petition and
contended that the petitioners are required for the
custodial interrogation as the offences are also under
the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishment Act (KPID) invoked by the
Police apart from the IPC Sections. Hence, he prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records, accused No.1, who is
said to be running a Company called Equinox Infratech
Limited & Group of Companies, as a Managing Director
and father-in-law of petitioner No.1. As per the
complainant, he is one of the Director, has categorically
stated that there are various companies and they got
invested so many people from Karnataka and other
parts of the country and they have cheated the persons
by taking investments without repaying the same.
After registering the case by the Police and the
investigation conducted by the C O D Police and KPID
Act invoked by the Police, additional charge sheet also
filed against the petitioners, it reveals that 156
depositors were cheated by the petitioners' company.
It also reveals that accused No.13 said to be the
complainant, is also made an accused subsequently by
the Police. Of course, the informant is only an
informant for setting the law in to motion but that itself
is not the ground to show that these petitioners are
entitled for anticipatory bail. The offence involved in
KPID Act as well as under IPC and cheated various
investors and general public. As per the complaint, the
petitioners have cheated more than Rs.60.00 crores.
Of course in an additional charge sheet, it was stated
as Rs.5.00 to 6.00 crores of 126 investors. The
complaint came to be registered in the year 2017 since
4 years, these petitioners are managing to escape and
not available for investigation by the Special Police. As
per Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the
petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail in
economic offences. The petitioners are directors, who
have committed economic offences. Therefore, the
petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail as they
are required for custodial interrogation.
Hence, the petition filed by petitioners/accused
Nos.11, 12 and 18 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HA/-
