Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re : Saja @ Srijon Roy vs Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah on 6 March, 2019
1 06.03.2019Sl. No. 8
sdas&PA C.R.M. 9126 of 2018 with C.R.M. 9127 of 2018 with C.R.M. 9140 of 2018 with C.R.M. 5996 of 2018 with C.R.M. 5998 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6000 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6026 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6027 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6028 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6029 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6033 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6039 of 2018 with C.R.M. 117 of 2019 with C.R.M. 120 of 2019 with C.R.M. 121 of 2019 with C.R.M. 122 of 2019 with C.R.M. 123 of 2019 with C.R.M. 124 of 2019 with C.R.M. 126 of 2019 In Re : Application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure And In Re : Saja @ Srijon Roy ........ petitioner 2 Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Y.J. Dastoor, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr Adv.
Mr. Subhashis Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. Koel Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv.
Mr.M. Murshed, Adv.
...... for the petitioner
Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, ld PP
Mr. A. K. Maiti, ld. A.P.P.
Ms. Trina Mitra, Adv. ...... for the State
in CRM 6000/ 2018 & CRM 126 / 2019
& CRM 9126 of 2018
Mr. M. Sur, ld. A.P.P.
Mr. M. Mahata, Adv.
...... for the State in CRM 6033/18 &
CRM 6026/18
Mr. B. K. Roy, Adv.
Ms. Rita Datta, Adv.
...... for the State in CRM 120/19
Mr. Binay Panda, Adv.
Mr. S. Bhakat, Adv.
...... for the State in CRM 6028/18
Mr. N. Ahmed, ld. A.P.P.,
Ms. Z. N. Khan, Adv.
....... for the State in CRM 9127/18
& CRM 6027/18
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Mainak Gupta, Adv.
....... for the State in CRM 6039/18
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv.
Mrs. Madhuparna Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Adv.
...... for the de facto complainant
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in one case after another involving similar 3 allegations in order to defeat the interim bail granted to him by this Court. It is further submitted that the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence of collecting monies from various people for the purpose of procuring employment in the Indian Railways is patently absurd and inherently improbable. There is considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R.s and the allegations have been motivatedly made in order to harass and humiliate him. It is also submitted that the proceeding against a co-accused, a prominent political personality, has been quashed by this Court.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is one of the kingpins in the deep rooted conspiracy of cheating various job seekers on the false promise of providing them employment in Indian Railways. Petitioner along with his associates had induced job seekers to make payments to them on the false representation they were authorized to select persons for appointment in the Railways. As no such appointment materialized, several individuals have approached the police for registering criminal cases. Petitioner was arrested in such cases and further investigation has revealed complicity of the petitioner in the sinister plot of setting up fake websites and preparing fabricated documents purportedly filed in judicial proceedings to cause wrongful loss to the victims and wrongful gain to themselves. It is further argued that petitioner does not stand on the same footing with the co-accused in respect of whom proceeding had been quashed and that the said order has been assailed before the Apex Court.
4
We have given anxious considerations to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. It appears on complaints lodged by various individuals alleging that they had been defrauded by the petitioner and others on the false promise of giving employment in Indian Railways a series of criminal cases have been registered. Petitioner was arrested in some of those cases and enlarged on interim bail. In the meantime, other individuals approached the police authorities and criminal cases were lodged at their behest. Further investigation revealed a more sinister and deep rooted conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and his associates than what was revealed in the earlier criminal cases when this Court was inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner. It has been strongly contended that several criminal cases were illegally registered on similar allegations in order to extend the pre-trial detention of the petitioner and he was shown arrested in one case after another to achieve such purpose. In this regard reliance has been placed on Uday Chand & Ors. vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K & Ors., 1983 SCC (Cri) 529 and Md. Hanif Mondal & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal, 2018 (4) Cal.Cr.LR (Cal) 188. We have considered such submission in the factual background of these cases. Every act of cheating of an individual by dishonestly inducing him to part with monies on the false promise of securing employment is a separate offence in itself and such aggrieved individual is entitled to initiate independent criminal proceeding for its redress. Hence, registration of independent criminal cases at the behest of each individual who is a victim of crime cannot, in our considered opinion, either be considered to be an abuse of process of Court or an arbitrary action on the part 5 of the police agency. We consider it apposite to refer to the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the police to register a F.I.R. in the event information received by them disclose ingredients of cognizable offence. Hence, registration of several F.I.R.s on complaints of various individuals who were duped by the petitioner and other accused persons is in consonance with the statutory duty of the police authorities as enumerated in Lalita Kumari (supra) and not an abuse of process of Court. Whether the offences disclosed in these F.I.R.s were committed in the course of same transaction and may be tried jointly or not are issues which may be addressed at the time of consideration of charge and trial and have no bearing at this preliminary stage of investigation.
It is also important to note that the contours of the crime as divulged from the F.I.R.s show that the petitioner and his associates through their dishonest and fraudulent activities and/or misrepresentations had created a false impression of closeness with the Railway administration and thereby had lured the unfortunate victims into their web of deceit and misappropriated their hard-earned monies. The uncontroverted allegations and the attending circumstances not only disclose the ingredients of offences qua the petitioner but also created an impression of affinity between the accused persons and men in authority in the minds of the victim which numbed them into silence and clearly explains the hesitance on the part of such victims to seek justice and the consequential delay in lodging FIR in these cases. 6
Coming to the issue that the petitioner had been illegally 'shown arrested' in one case after another, we note that the victims had approached the police authorities on different dates and the investigation in each of these cases commenced thereafter. The investigating agency progressed with the investigation of each case and upon collection of relevant materials arrested the petitioner in such cases. Such conduct of the investigating agency in collecting prima facie materials in support of the allegations levelled by the victims in order to give rise to a reasonable suspicion with regard to complicity of the petitioner in the crime, in fact, shows rectitude and impartiality on their part ruling out any insinuation of hasty and arbitrary arrest. In Uday Chand (supra) the re-arrest of the petitioner was held to be illegal and mala fide as subsequent F.I.R. against the petitioner had not been disclosed. In Md. Hanif Mondal (supra) the petitioner was released on bail as he was not produced before the Court within 24 hours of being shown arrested. The factual matrix of the present cases are substantially different from the cited authorities. By an earlier order the investigation agency had been called upon to disclose the number of cases pending against the petitioner and in the course of investigation of such cases petitioner was shown arrested. Within 24 hours of being shown arrested in these cases, petitioner had been remanded by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the subsequent arrest of the petitioner in these cases was illegal or a mala fide exercise. Presently, the petitioner is in custody pursuant to lawful orders of remand passed by the Magistrate. It is trite law that legality of detention is to be decided at the time when such issue is raised before the Court. Alleged 7 irregularity, if any, in the matter of arrest pales into insignificance in the light of subsequent lawful orders of remand and, therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner relating to illegal arrest cannot provide justification to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Coming to the merits of the case, we note that the petitioner is one of the conspirators who had by way of false and dishonest representations induced innumerable unemployed youths to believe that they were authorized and were working in closed nexus with the railway administration and would procure employment for them. On such misrepresentations petitioner and co-accused persons cheated innocent job seekers of large sums of money. To instill confidence in the minds of the victims, they manufactured forged seals and official documents pertaining to the Indian Railways and many of such incriminating materials have been seized from the possession of the petitioner. It has also come to light that the petitioner and others had fraudulently set up a fake website purportedly titled as www.irr.resut.in.com wherein they published a fake list of successful candidates for employment in railways. Materials have also come to light particularly in the course of further investigation that the accused persons had prepared fabricated court pleadings including purported application for addition of parties in order to misuse and manipulate orders passed by this Court and perpetuate the fraud. Gravity of the offence and its deep rooted ramifications are patent on the face of record. Involvement of the petitioner therein is evident from the overwhelming materials collected in the course of investigation. Further investigation is in progress and the matter is 8 poised at a delicate stage where the role and involvement of the petitioner and other accused persons in fabricating documents to misuse court orders is being presently explored. Hence, we did not consider it prudent to enlarge the petitioner on bail in these cases at this stage.
With regard to the prayer for confirmation of interim bail granted to the petitioner in CRM 5996 of 2018, CRM 5998 of 2018, CRM 6000 of 2018, CRM 6026 of 2018, CRM 6027 of 2018, CRM 6028 of 2018, CRM 6029 of 2018, CRM 6033 of 2018 and CRM 6039 OF 2018, we note that further investigation has amplified the magnitude and gravity of the offences manifold. Role of the petitioner therein is deeply entrenched as would appear from the further materials collected in the course of such investigation. Further investigation is in progress. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that it would not be prudent to confirm the interim bail granted to the petitioner in the interest of further investigation. Hence, we chose not to confirm the interim bail to the petitioner in these cases and we reject his prayer for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, all the applications for bail are rejected.
(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)