Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Anticipatory Bail vs Unknown on 18 September, 2017
1 18.09.2017
C.R.M. 8450 of 2017 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the matter of: Shanti Prasad Agarwal ....Petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Ms. Nigamashish Chakraborty, Mr. Sreetama Roy, Mr. Agniva Banerjee.
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. PP ..... for the State.
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee Mr. Soumya Nag .....for the de facto complainant.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Hare Street Police Station FIR No. 154 of 2015 dated 14.03.2015 under sections 465/467/468/471/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, (hereafter the IPC), the petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) for obtaining an order of anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the case diary, is that the petitioner being one of the directors of Barun Tea Plantations Limited manufactured one agreement by forging the signature of the defacto complainant (Pawan Kumar Agarwal) and 2 thereby obtained an order of injunction from this Hon'ble Court in CS No. 434 of 2014 along with GA No. 44 of 2015. The petitioner along with other accused persons in collusion and/or in connivance with each other manufactured the forged document prior to using copies thereof in the said legal proceedings and therefore the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would have no manner of application in the instant case. The further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner being one of the directors of Barun Plantation Private Limited has been trying to grab the properties of Sonali Tea Estate and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy for commission of the murder of the erstwhile owner of Sonali Tea Estate, which case has ultimately resulted in filing of charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the IPC and wherein the petitioner has been shown as accused. The further case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is an influential person and he had tried to influence the investigation of the earlier case under Section 302/34 of the IPC and due to consistent direction from this Court in CRM 4352 of 2015, W.P. No. 24654 (W) of 2015 and W.P. No. 19418(W) of 2017 at the behest of the wife of the deceased, the case under Section 302/34 has culminated in filing of charge sheet as aforesaid.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Barun Tea 3 Plantation Private Limited entered into an agreement with Sonali Tea Estate for supply of green tea leaves and the company has paid more than Rs. 1 (one) crore to Sonali Tea Estate in due discharge of its commercial liability. He draws the attention of the Court to page no. 102 of the application and further submits that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal code. On the contrary, the owner of Sonali Tea Estate was brutally murdered by the labourers due to non-payment of their wages. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court has also admitted and accepted the agreement in question and thereafter has been pleased to grant an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also complied with the notices served upon him under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all required. He has prayed for favouring the petitioner with an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that both the tea estates are situated adjacent to each other and in a long drawn conspiracy the petitioner along with some other accused persons wanted to grab the entire properties of Sonali Tea Estate. In order to cripple the activities of Sonali Tea Estate the petitioner has prepared some forged 4 documents including the agreement with the forged signature of the defacto complainant and thereby tried to capture the entire products of Sonali Tea Estate.
During investigation of this case by the Criminal Investigation Department, (in First Information Report No. 655 of 2014 dated 22.11.2014), it transpires that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy of the murder of one Rajesh Jhunjhunwala, owner of Sonali Tea Estate. It is evident from the charge sheet of that case that the petitioner along with other accused persons used to threat the widow of Rajesh Jhunjhunwala for transferring Sonali Tea Estate at a minimum price in favour of the petitioner and others. The petitioner could not get the ownership of Sonali Tea Estate even after murder of Rajesh Jhunjhunwala and thereafter prepared some forged document so as to grab the entire products of Sonali Tea Estate on the ground that Sonali Tea Estate will have to supply the green tea leaves only to the company of the petitioner and thereby also obtained an order of injunction against Sonali Tea Estate. The forged document was prepared prior to filing of such case and the same has been examined by the Questioned Document Examination Bureau. The result of such examination reveals that the signatures and writings of the defacto complainant were forged for the purpose of the said agreement. It is also submitted on behalf of the State that custodial interrogation of the 5 petitioner is necessary for effective and meaningful investigation of this case.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the defacto complainant vehemently contended that in order to avoid the consequences of the charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the IPC, the petitioner has manufactured those documents to project that the petitioner had entered into a commercial transaction with Sonali Tea Estate. In fact, but for the intervention of this Hon'ble Court, the case under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the petitioner would have been frustrated due to the influence of the petitioner.
On careful consideration of the case diary and the antecedents of the petitioner, it prima facie reveals that in a bid to grab Sonali Tea Estate, the petitioner has been involved in a conspiracy to commit murder of the owner of such tea estate and despite filing of the charge sheet the petitioner has been absconding. The antecedent of the petitioner tells heavily against him. Secondly, the relevant document (agreement) has been forged prior to filing of such civil suit before another bench of this Court which, upon consideration by the bureau, has revealed forgery. It is such document that the petitioner has relied before this Court. The possibility of the petitioner obtaining an order of injunction from this Court with the help of such forged document, cannot be totally ruled out.
6
Having considered the submissions of both the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as the antecedents of the petitioner, we are of considered view that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is urgently required for effective and meaningful investigation of the instant FIR.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the application stands rejected.
Needless to observe, the aforesaid observations shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending judicial proceedings.
Urgent photostat copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Debi Prosad Dey, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)