[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Vimal Kumar Jwala Prasad Shrivastav ... vs The State Of Tripura Represented By Ld. ... on 16 January, 2026
-1-
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB No.90 of 2025
Sri Vimal Kumar Jwala Prasad Shrivastav S/o- Jwala Prasad
Shrivastav, Occupation- Proprietor, M/s A. V. Associates, P/r- Lata
Apartment, in front of Walde Xerox, Bezanbag Road, Kadvi
Square, Nagpur, Maharashtra.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura represented by Ld. PP, High Court of
Tripura, Agartala.
....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishor Lambat, Advocate.
Ms. Suja Joshi, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta,PP.
Date of hearing and : 16.01.2026
Delivery of Judgment/
Order
Whether fit for reporting: Yes No
=B=E=F=O=R=E=
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Ld. Counsel, Mr. Kishor Lambat, Advocate
and Ld. Counsel, Ms. Suja Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Also heard Ld. PP, Mr. Raju Datta, for the state, who has
produced the CD.
[2] This application has been filed under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short-'BNSS'),
2023 praying for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, Shri Vimal
Kumar Jwala Prasad Shrivastav in connection with West
Agartala P.S. Case No.2025/WAG/101 registered under
Sections 61(2), 318(2), 319, 316(5), 336(3), 340(2), 341
and 338 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short- 'BNS'), 2023.
[3] The FIR was lodged on 04.09.2025 in the Police
Station by the Zonal Manager of UCO Bank of Agartala that
they had received one complaint from Agartala Municipal
Council regarding alleged unauthorized transactions on
05.08.2025, 08.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 amounting to
Rs.16,38,43,300.00(Rupees sixteen crore thirty-eight lakh
forty-three thousand and three hundred)only from their
account bearing No.00910205556050 standing in the name
of Executive Engineer, Division-II, Agartala Municipal Council
at 20:18 hours on 03.09.2025. Thereafter, the bank
authority enquired the matter and on preliminary
investigation, the following facts regarding such transactions
were revealed:
Sl.No. Name of Date of Cheque Amount Remarks(UTR No.)
beneficiaries Transactions No.
1 Ganesh Enterprises 05.08.2025 000441 1,98,99,400.00 UCBAH25217252020
2 Shri Sai Balaji 05.08.2025 000439 2,17,48,700.00 UCBAH25217250562
Associates Pvt. Ltd.
3 Paliwal Enterprises 08.08.2025 000447 2,61,47,700.00 UCBAH25220154841
4 RU Enterprises 08.08.2025 000450 2,37,49,900.00 UCBAH25220155138
5 A V Associates 02.09.2025 000440 4,57,47,700.00 UCBAH25245725690
6 Biswas Enterprise 02.09.2025 000449 2,65,49,900.00 UCBAH25245726202
Total 16,38,43,300.00
[4] It was also stated by the informant in the FIR that
apparently those instruments as mentioned above, were in
order and duly issued along with duly signed mandates for
RTGS transactions. But, the Agartala Municipal authority
alleged that the cheques used for the RTGS transactions
were not issued by them. The AMC officials visited the Branch
on 03.09.2025 and physically produced the unused cheques
whose details were used for the alleged unauthorized
transactions on the above said dates. Further, CCTV footage
of the dates on which alleged unauthorized transactions were
done also revealed that one unidentified person presented
himself as AMC official submitted the aforementioned
cheques along with the duly signed mandates for the RTGS
transactions to different vendors as mentioned. Since the
original unused cheques were in AMC's custody, the RTGS
transaction to the debit of account number 00910205556050
of Executive Engineer, Division-II, Agartala Municipal Council
on above said three dates were prima facie fraudulent in
nature and in view of above, request was made to register a
complaint and to initiate investigation.
[5] As informed by both sides, the Police authority,
during investigation, arrested one accused person namely,
Ramyani Sreemayee who was the Assistant Manager of UCO
Bank, Kaman Chowmuhani Branch and that she has been
granted bail on completion of 90 days of detention.
[6] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner referring to a letter
dated 25.08.2025 issued by Sukanyajeevan Nidhi Limited
(Annexure-3), submits that accused petitioner initially
applied for a loan in said bank and accordingly, Rs.3 crore 50
Lakh was sanctioned in his favour and it is also true that a
sum of Rs.4,57,47,700/- only, was credited into his account
on 02.09.2025. In all bonafides, Ld. Counsel submits, the
petitioner thought that said amount was credited into his
account on the basis of his submission of application for loan
before said Sukanyajeevan Nidhi Limited. Thereafter, he also
disbursed 3.5 crore to his different customers to whom he
was indebted in business transaction and he, in no occasion,
has withdrawn any amount or utilized any amount for his
personal purpose from the amount which was credited to his
account from said UCO Bank and even at present an amount
of Rs. 1,24,32,568/- is still lying in his account and he is
even ready to return the said amount to the UCO Bank
authority. Ld. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is a
reputed business man in his locality dealing in sand and due
to freezing of his account, he is suffering serious business
loss and there is no chance of his abscondance.
[7] Ld. Counsel, Mr. Lambat also submits that the
accused petitioner is always ready to cooperate with the
investigation and even to return the money. There was no
malafide intention from his side to illegally grab any amount
from any public fund or bank, rather, in all bonafides and on
the assumption that his loan amount was disbursed, he
transacted those amount from his bank account.
[8] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner also refers to an
email send by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer for
defreezing his account on 04.09.2025 and in turn, I.O has
also given him reply by reply mail dated 04.09.2025 asking
him to contact the I.O. to regularize his account.
[9] Ld. Counsel submits that if the petitioner had any
evil intention to fraudulently grab such amount certainly he
would not write the letter immediately after said FIR was
lodged.
[10] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner further submits that
against his proposal for loan, already he has submitted Bank
guarantee of Rs. 10 crore to said Sukanyajeevan Nidhi
Limited. Therefore, from the said fact also, his bonafides can
be inferred.
[11] Ld. Counsel also tried to show referring to some
other documents that some other financial agencies also
offered loan to the petitioner in this regard.
[12] Finally, Ld. Counsel prays for granting pre-arrest
bail to the petitioner submitting that there is no criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and moreover, he being a
reputed businessman, there is no chance of his abscondance
and furthermore, he is ever ready to cooperate with the
investigation.
[13] Ld. PP, Mr. Raju Datta on the other hand, referring
to the notification dated 31.03.2014, issued by Ministry of
Corporate Affairs, submits that as per the Nidhi Rules, the
highest amount which can be sanctioned is rupees fifteen
lakh and such loan amount can only be granted to the
members of 'Nidhi' and not to any third party.
[14] Further, Ld. PP also refers to a letter dated
06.01.2026 issued by Sukanyajeevan authority in reply to a
correspondence made by the Investigating Officer that no
loan was sanctioned or disbursed from them to M/s. AV
Associates or to the accused petitioner who is the proprietor
of the said AV Associates. It is also confirmed by them that
the loan proposal did not proceed to approval stage due to
non fulfillment/ insufficiency of required document and
jurisdictional constraint. Therefore, according to Ld. PP
further investigation is going on regarding the authenticity of
letter dated 25.08.2025 as submitted from the side of
petitioner.
[15] Ld. PP also referring to some materials placed in
the CD, tries to show that apart from disbursement to third
parties, the petitioner also transacted some amount like
Rupees 50 lakh immediately and without delay to his own
other accounts which creates serious suspicion about his
fraudulent intention.
[16] Finally, Ld. PP relies on a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Serious Fraud Investigation
Officer vs. Aditya Sarda[2025 SCC Online SC 764]
wherein at paragraph no.18, it was observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that so far as the anticipatory bail is
concerned, it has been consistently emphasized that such
bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly
in serious economic offences, involving large scale of fraud,
public money or complex financial crime.
[17] Ld. PP also further relies on another decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram vs.
Directorate of Enforcement [2019 9 SCC 24] wherein
also at paragraph no. 78, said principle was further reiterated
that power under Section 438 Cr.PC being an extraordinary
remedy, has to be exercised sparingly. In paragraph 69 also,
it was observed that ordinarily arrest is part of procedure of
the investigation to secure not only the presence of the
accused but several other purposes.
[18] The Court has given due consideration to the
submissions of the Ld. Counsel of both sides and has also
perused the materials placed in the CD.
[19] There is no dispute from both the sides that a
total amount of Rs.16,38,43,300/- was unauthorizedly
withdrawn from the account of Agartala Municipal
Corporation from their account lying at UCO Bank,
Kamanchowmuhani branch. It is also admitted position that a
sum of Rs.4,57,47,700/- was credited into the account of A V
Associates on 02.09.2025 of which the petitioner is the
proprietor. Even if the contention of the petitioner that Rs.3.5
crore loan was sanctioned in his favour is accepted, but no
satisfactory explanation is offered by the petitioner as to how
Rs.4.57 crore was transacted to his bank account and that is,
too, not from Sukanyajeevan Nidhi Limited but from UCO
Bank, Kamanchowmuhani branch. Even the letter produced
by Ld. PP shows that no amount was at all sanctioned in
favour of said petitioner from said Sukanyajeevan Nidhi
Limited.
[20] Though, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that when all the amount has been freezed in the respective
account, now there was no further necessity of custodial
interrogation of the petitioner, but the Court is not satisfied
with that contention, for, apart from freezing of the account,
in the petition submitted before the Court of Ld. Addl.
Sessions Judge, Agartala by the I.O., he has objected the bail
application of the present petitioner praying for his custodial
interrogation for the purpose of identifying the entire nexus
involved in such fraudulent activities and also to recover the
instrument /devices which were used for manipulation of the
cheques.
[21] Apart from his ground of recovery of huge
amount, it is a case of huge financial transaction fraudulently
touching the public money and as already discussed above,
despite some attempts are made from the side of the
petitioner to show his bonafide, but such explanations do not
generate much satisfaction in the mind of the Court. The
investigation is also at its preliminary stage.
[22] Ld. Counsel of the petitioner finally submitted that
the petitioner is ready to deposit any amount which is asked
by the I.O. and on that ground bail may be granted to him.
But, considering the gravity of the offence and material
placed in the CD, Court is also not inclined to grant such
liberty to the petitioner.
[23] Considering all these aspects and taking note of
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated
above, this bail application is rejected.
Accordingly, the matter is disposed of.
[24] Return the CD with copy of this order.
A copy of this order also be communicated to Ld.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma
RUDRADEEP Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP
BANERJEE
BANERJEE Date: 2026.01.17 12:49:11
+05'30'
