Smt. Anima Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 118 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Anima Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 7 July, 2025

                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                           B.A.No.44 of 2025

Smt. Anima Sarkar
W/o: Asish Sarkar,
Resident of Shibbari Road,
Udaipur town, P.S.: R.K. Pur,
District: Gomati Tripura.
                                                                ---- Applicant(s)
On behalf of accused
Sri Abishek Sarkar,
S/o: Asish Sarkar,
Resident of Shibbari Road,
Udaipur town, P.S.: R.K. Pur,
District: Gomati Tripura.
                                                          ---- Accused Person(s)
                                     Versus
The State of Tripura
Represented by the Secretary,
To the Home Department,
New Secretariat, P.S.: N.C.C.
P.O.: Kunjaban, District: West Tripura.
                                                  ----Respondent(s)

____________________________________________________________ For Applicant(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Samar Das, Adv.

Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)          :
                            Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
                            Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.

_____________________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Order

07/07/2025

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for

granting bail to the accused person in custody, namely Shri Abishek Sarkar

in connection with R.K. Pur PS Case No. 29 of 2025 under Sections 316(5),

318(4), 318(3), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya

assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Samar Das appearing on behalf of the

accused in custody. Also heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on

behalf of the State-respondent.

As ordered earlier, the case diaries of the relevant case along

with the record of the Learned Court below have been produced by Learned

P.P. representing the prosecution.

Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel first of all has

drawn the attention of this court, referring the contents of the F.I.R. dated

18.02.2025, laid by one Sri Soman Biswas, being the Branch Manager of

HDFC Bank Ltd., Udaipur Branch and submitted that the accused in custody

was simply an Assistant Manager and the charges levelled against him in the

F.I.R. were totally baseless and concocted. Learned Senior Counsel

submitted that the present accused was in no way involved with the alleged

crime. Furthermore, Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this

court to the contents of other F.I.Rs annexed with the present bail

application as Annexure-2 i.e. the F.I.R. laid by one Smt. Niyati Sarkar Roy,

Annexure 3 i.e. the F.I.R. laid by one Smt. Suniti Datta Sen, and also

Annexure 4 i.e. the F.I.R. laid by one Lopa Mudra Homroy. Referring the

contents of all those F.I.Rs, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

accused in custody has been falsely implicated in this case and in connection

with case No. 26 of 2025 he has already been granted bail and another co-

accused, Priyanka Paul has been granted bail in all the aforesaid cases.

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation levelled against

the accused in custody in the F.I.R. of the present case does not reveal that

he is directly involved with the alleged crime. Furthermore, in support of his

contention Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no chance of his

absconsion and tampering the evidence on record as this case is completely

based on documentary evidence on record. So, for the sake of his proper

defense he needs to be acquitted on bail and furthermore since the co-

accused has already been granted bail, so, at this stage, there is no reason

to reject this bail application. In support of his contention, Learned Senior

Counsel referred the following citations:

i. (2012) 1 SCC 40, para Nos.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 46.

ii. (2018) 3 SCC 22, para Nos.4, 5 and 6.

iii. (2020) 13 SCC 791, para Nos.18, 19, 20, 23.

In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para Nos.22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 46

observed as under:

"22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.

24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice".

25. The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual.

26. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 489] observed that: (SCC p. 52, para 18)

"18. ... Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case, there is need to release such [accused] on bail, where fact situations require it to do so."

46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge- sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

In Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 3

SCC 22, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para Nos.4, 5 and 6 observed as

under:

"4. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re [Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, In re, (2017) 10 SCC 658 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 90] .

5. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India [Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1 : (2017) 13 Scale 609] going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re [Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re, 1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318 : AIR 1924 Cal 476] that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson [Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, 1931 SCC OnLine All 14 : AIR 1931 All 356] wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the

liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.

6. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."

In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement,

reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para

Nos.18, 19, 20 and 23 observed as under:

"18. The only other aspect therefore for consideration is as to whether the further consideration made by the learned Judge of the High Court, despite holding the triple test in the appellant's favour was justified and if consideration is permissible, whether the learned Judge was justified in his conclusion.

19. While opposing the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge of the High Court ought not to have travelled beyond the consideration on the triple test and holding it in favour of the appellant, the learned Solicitor General would contend that the gravity of the offence and the role played by the accused should also be a part of consideration in the matter of bail. It is contended by the learned Solicitor General that the economic offences is a class apart and the gravity is an extremely relevant factor while considering bail. In order to contend that this aspect has been judicially recognised, the decisions in State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar [State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 771] ; Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] ; CBI v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay [CBI v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1491] ; Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari [Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 706] ; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013)

7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] are relied upon. Perusal of the cited decisions would indicate that this Court has held that economic offences are also of grave nature, being a class apart which arises out of deep- rooted conspiracies and effect on the community as a whole is also to be kept in view, while consideration for bail is made.

20. On the consideration as made in the abovenoted cases and the enunciation in that regard having been noted, the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the principles laid down for consideration of application for bail will require our consideration. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] with reference to para 27 which reads as hereunder : (SCC pp. 586-87)

"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re [Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, In re, 1923 SCC OnLine Cal 318 : AIR 1924 Cal 476 : 1924 Cri LJ 732] , AIR Cal at pp. 479, 480 that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly, are the "Meerut Conspiracy cases" observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In Emperor v. Joglekar [Emperor v. Joglekar, 1931 SCC OnLine All 60 : AIR 1931 All 504 : 1932 Cri LJ 94] it was observed, while dealing with Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present Section

437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard-and-fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson [Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, 1931 SCC OnLine All 14 : AIR 1931 All 356 : 1931 Cri LJ 1271] , AIR All at p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which will bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence."

23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature

of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial."

Referring all the aforesaid citations, Learned Senior Counsel has

drawn the attention of this court that even in the economic offences there is

scope for granting bail to the accused and here in the case at hand, from the

relevant prosecution papers, there is no evidence on record that the accused

in custody was the sole authority to commit the offence rather, he has been

falsely implicated in this case. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that

as the co-accused, Smt. Priyanka Paul has been granted bail so this

concession may also be granted to the present accused in custody.

On the other hand, Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the

State-respondent strongly opposed the submissions made by Learned Senior

Council for the accused in custody and submitted that although co-accused,

Priyanka Paul has been granted bail but she is the business partner of the

present accused person. Further, the internal investigation conducted by the

respective bank shows his clear involvement with the alleged offence.

Referring different pages of the case diaries, Learned P.P. has further drawn

the attention of this court that the allegation against the accused in custody

is serious one as huge amount of money of the customers have been

misappropriated by him in association with other accused persons and if at

this stage he is granted bail in that case he may either abscond or may

tamper the witnesses of the prosecution.

Referring the judgment dated 27.06.2025 passed by this court in

connection with BA No. 41 of 2025, Learned P.P. submitted that the present

accused is also involved with the accused of that case and considering the

nature and gravity of the charges, till conclusion of trial, the present accused

should remain in custody as there is huge allegation of misappropriation of

public money of more than Rs.80,00,000/-.

Considered.

Here, in the present case at hand, the prosecution was set into

motion on the basis of an F.I.R. laid by one Soman Biswas, Branch Manager

of HDFC Bank Ltd., Udaipur Branch to O/C R.K. Pur PS alleging inter alia that

there were several illegal and unauthorized transactions which were carried

out by one of their staff namely, Abishek Sarkar who was working as an

Assistant Manager in that branch and for the past few months several

complaints were received from their customers about various unauthorized

transactions from their accounts, opening of dubious overdraft facilities as

well as closure of Fixed Deposits without the consent or approval of the

customers. In the F.I.R., it was also mentioned that

A. A complaint was lodged by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, that there are

some unauthorized transactions in his account number

99906909956736 regarding an Overdraft facility in the account, which

he is not aware of. Customer claimed amount is Rs.7,20,000/-

(Rupees Seven Lac twenty thousand only).

B. A complaint was lodged by Mrs. Runa Ghosh, W/o Mr. Mrinal Kanti

Ghosh, that there are some unauthorized transactions in her account

number 99908787737001. Further she informed that there is an

Overdraft facility in the account, which she is not aware of. Customer

claimed amount is Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lac fifty thousand

only).

C. A complaint was lodged by Mrs. Niyati Sarkar Roy that there are some

unauthorized transactions in her account number 99908787462675.

Further she mentioned that there is an Overdraft facility in the

account, which she is not aware. Customer claimed amount is

Rs.25,50,261/- (Rupees Twenty five Lac fifty thousand two hundred

sixty one only).

D. A complaint was lodged by Mrs. Suniti Datta Sen has lodged a

complaint that there are some unauthorized transactions in her

account number 50100543335395. Further she mentioned that there

is an Overdraft facility in the account, which he is not aware of.

Customer claimed amount is Rs.20,93,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac

ninety three thousand only).

E. A complaint was lodged by Mr. Ranjit Dey that there are some

unauthorized transactions in his account number 50200067052132.

Further he also mentioned that there is an Overdraft facility in the

account, which he is not aware of. Customer claimed amount is

Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty one Lac only).

F. A complaint was lodged by Miss Lopamudra Homroy, that she booked

Two Fixed Deposits for Rs.3 Lakh the advice Abishek Sarkar, which

she later came to know that it is fabricated one.

From the F.I.R. it also transpires that the Bank immediately

acted upon and on scrutiny and internal investigation made by the Bank

through CCTV footage, India Post Tracking System as well as going through

the statements of the accounts of the customers it has been found that

cheques of the customers are being kept and collected by the accused in

custody and overdraft facilities were created in their names creating

different fake accounts without their consent. Furthermore, going through

the statement of the accounts it was found that fraudulent transactions were

made and huge amount of money was transferred to the persons namely, 1.

Mrs. Priyanka Paul, 2. Mr. Kanai Saha, and 3. Mr. Bidhan Chandra Saha and

others. Hence, Sri Soman Biswas laid the F.I.R. stating that a sum of Rs.

82,13,261/- was fraudulently withdrawn by illegal and unauthorized

transactions. On the basis of the F.I.R., R.K. Pur PS Case No. 29 of 2025

under Section 316(5), 318(4), 318(3), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(a) of BNS Act,

2023 was registered against the present accused person, Abishek Sarkar

and three other co-accused persons namely, Smt. Priyanka Paul, Sri Kanai

Saha, and Sri. Bidhan Chandra Saha. The investigation of this case is still in

progress and the I.O. by this time has collected materials against the

present accused persons and others showing their involvement with the

alleged crime.

I have perused the case diary and the internal investigation

report of the Bank.

It appears to this Court that the present accused being an

employee of the HDFC Bank participated in the commission of offence

directly and from the statement of witnesses including the staff of the Bank,

it transpires how the accused person directly participated in the commission

of offence along with others creating fraudulent and forged accounts and

illegally transferred money to the account of other accused persons.

I have also perused the case diaries of R.K. Pur PS, case no. 5 of

2025, 21 of 2025 and 26 of 2025.

It is the admitted position that in connection with case no. 26 of

2025, the present accused has been granted default bail.

I have also perused the citations referred by Learned Senior

Counsel at the time of hearing of the present bail application. However,

considering the nature and gravity of the offence it appears to this court that

relying upon the principles laid down in the aforesaid citations, at this stage,

as the investigation is still going on, there is no scope to release the accused

person on bail. Further, the internal investigation report of the bank reveals

that the accused in custody indulged in grave and serious malpractices in

execution of his responsibilities. He also indulged in various financial

irregularities like preparing and issuing fixed deposit certificates to

customers, defrauding the customers, instructing other bank staffs to forge

customer's signatures on different instruments and was also responsible for

misappropriation of money amounting to Rs. 59,63,645/- or more and all

the misdeeds were done by him in collusion with other banking staff who

were/are also the accused. So, considering the nature of allegation and the

facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, this court does not find

any scope to consider the bail application of the present accused.

Accordingly, the same stands rejected. The accused person is to remain in

J/C as before.

Return back the record of the Learned Trial Court below along

with a copy of this order. Send down the CD to I.O. through Learned P.P.

along with a copy of this order with a direction to expediate the investigation

and submit report to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

JUDGE

Snigdha

AMRIT Digitally signed by AMRITA DEB

A DEB Date: 2025.07.07 18:04:50 +05'30'