Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sections 420/467/468/471/120B Of The ... vs In Re on 13 February, 2019
1 13.02.201901
Allowed md.
CRM No. 9645 of 2018 (Assigned) Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26th October, 2018 in connection with Metiabruz Police Station Case No.157/16 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
And In Re:-
Tarun Kumar Patra ... Petitioner Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basu, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Chinmoy Guha Thakurta, Mr. Suman Ganguly .. for the petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee, A.P.P., Mrs. Manasi Roy .. for the State The matter pertains to the petitioner's anticipatory bail being cancelled by the court below on the ground that a view had been expressed by an income-tax officer to the effect that the complainant's signature as apparent from the photocopy of a document appeared to be at variance with the complainant's usual signature.
The petitioner and the complainant carried on construction business in a partnership firm. On December 08, 2016, the complainant lodged the complaint, inter alia, alleging that on May 1 2 06, 2014, the petitioner along with his elder brother "prepared and typed a statement upon a backdated non-judicial stamp paper and I was made to sign therein giving therein the backdate '24.12.2013' as instructed by both of them..."
The substance of the complaint is that the complainant continues as partner of the construction business and he has been wrongfully shown to have resigned from the partnership.
In addition to the declaration of December 24, 2013, which the complainant alleges to have been forced to sign on May 06, 2014, there is a deed of dissolution of April 01, 2014. The petitioner says that the deed of dissolution was prepared and executed in accordance with the complainant's promise in the declaration of December 24, 2013 that he would no longer be associated with the partnership business after three months.
However, it is not clear where this deed of dissolution of April 01, 2014 may now be, since the best copy available with the income-tax authorities is only a photocopy of the relevant document.
Ordinarily, such a document would be expected to be with the petitioner herein since the complainant would not have any interest 2 3 after having resigned from the partnership firm. For some reason, the relevant document is not available with the petitioner and the petitioner claims that the same is with the complainant. This stand of the petitioner is somewhat contrary to the representation in a letter issued by Advocate for the petitioner in response to a notice received from the investigating officer under Section 91 of the Code. By such notice under Section 91 of the Code dated June 21, 2017, several documents were called for in original. The immediate response of Advocate of June 29, 2017 was that the documents were in possession of Advocate but due to his pre-occupation, the documents would be furnished after sometime. Under cover of a letter dated July 08, 2017, certain documents were forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of Metiabruz P.S. purportedly in response to the notice under Section 91 of the Code dated June 21, 2017, but the original deed of dissolution was not one of the documents furnished. This gives rise to some suspicion and an adverse inference in such regard may have to be drawn at the appropriate stage.
However, merely because the original deed of dissolution does not show up, it would not imply that the petitioner's prayer should 3 4 be rejected. For a start, the allegations in the complaint appear to be somewhat doubtful and confusing. Ordinarily, a person who is coerced to execute a document in May of one year and required to date the document as of December of the previous year, would not be expected to wait for the next two and half years before lodging a complaint in such regard.
In the light of the material now available against the petitioner, there may not be any need for his custodial interrogation as long as he co-operates with the investigation.
In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.
CRM 9645 of 2018 is allowed as above.
4 5 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. )
5