Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Soumitra Khan vs State Of West Bengal on 18 February, 2019
1 165 18.02.2019
AB Court 28 C.R.M. 1943 of 2019 & PA In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Borjora P.S. Case No.07 of 2019 dated 10.1.2019 under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
And Soumitra Khan ...Petitioner.
Versus State of West Bengal ...Opposite Party Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms. K. Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Sardar, Adv. ...for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, ld. PP Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Adv. ...for the State. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is a Member of Parliament and that he has been falsely implicated in this criminal case due to change in his political allegiance. It is also submitted that the allegations in the first information report with regard to payment of monies to the petitioner for procuring employment in School Service Commission (for short 'S.S.C'). Group C Category are patently absurd and inherently improbable as he is in no way connected with the selection 2 process which is done under the auspices of the School Service Commission.
It is also submitted that the allegation of payment of money to the petitioner was belatedly made only after he had shifted his political allegiance. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of this case.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits a number of persons made statements under Sections 161/164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they had paid monies to the petitioner for procuring employment in the aforesaid category. The petitioner had shown a printout of a list of candidates to induce them to part with money on the false promise of employment. The incident occurred much prior to the shifting of political allegiance of the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the instant case is a product of political malice or machinations.
We have considered the materials on record. Allegation of corruption by a public representative/public servant is a serious matter. There are statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 161/164 Cr.P.C. at pages 26, 29, 34 and 42 of the case diary stating that moneys were paid to the petitioner for procuring job in S.S.C. Group-C category. Pages 26 and 29 3 relate to statements of witnesses who had seen the petitioner receive money from one Bishnupada Mondal to procure employment for his son. Statement of the said Bishnupada is at page 7 of the case diary. Statements of other persons who made similar payments are at pages 34/35 and 42/43 of the case diary. Printout of the list of candidates purportedly used by the petitioner to allegedly induce the victims was produced by the de facto complainant before the investigating agency.
Having gone through the aforesaid statements we find that the selection process had begun in 2017. No investigation has been done whether the results of the said examination had been published and if so, when. It is alleged that the petitioner induced the victims to make payments in October - Nov, 2018 by showing a printout of a list of candidates. Such fact is significantly absent in the first information report. Independent witnesses also did not state that any list had been handed over either to the de facto complainant or his father.
Under such circumstances, it is unclear how a photocopy of the purported list was produced before the I.O. by the de facto complainant. Further investigation is necessary with regard to its authenticity.
It is also important to note that the petitioner is in no way connected with the selection process which is wholly 4 entrusted to S.S.C. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner had entered into conspiracy with public servants attached to S.S.C. It is, therefore, a matter to be seriously delved into why the de facto complainant's father and other victims made payments to the petitioner in October- November, 2018 in respect of a selection process which had commenced in March, 2017.
It is also strange that the petitioner would receive illicit payments in the presence of independent witnesses.
However, keeping in mind the nature and gravity of allegations and as investigation is at its nascent stage, we are of the opinion, hearing of this application may be adjourned to a latter date to give the investigating agency more time to investigate the allegations and present a clearer profile of the case before this Court. In the meantime, a balance needs to be struck between the interest of the fair investigation on the one hand and the liberty of the petitioner on the other hand provided he is willing to co-operate with the investigating agency in accordance with law.
Let this matter appear on 12.3.2019 for further hearing. Report with regard to progress in investigation be filed on that date.
We further direct that the petitioner shall not be 5 arrested till 18.3.2019 or until further orders, whichever is earlier on condition that he shall not enter the district of Bankura except for the purposes of investigation and while attending court proceeding and shall meet the Investigating Officer once a week until further orders and he shall not tamper or intimidate witnesses in any manner whatsoever and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the Investigating Officer as well as court below.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)