Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Indian Penal Code vs In Re on 4 October, 2018
1 04.10.2018
Item no. 204 Ct. No.34 CHC C.R.M. No.6839 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.8.2018 in connection with N.T.S. Police Station Case No. 73/2018 dated 3.7.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In Re:-
Suresh Harijan ... Petitioner Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with N.T.S. Police Station Case No. 73/2018 dated 3.7.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter pertains to a complaint by a school run by a charitable trust. The letter of complaint dated July 3, 2018 was issued by Mata Amritanandamayi Math, said to be a registered public charitable trust and running a CBSE-affiliated school in Durgapur since 2003. The complaint was lodged by the Principal of such school and the complaint indicated that a cheque for an amount of Rs.30 crore apparently issued by the school to one 2 Radha Kanaiya Mineral & Transport Company was presented to the school's bank but was dishonoured due to "signature difference". The complaint expressed the suspicion that the petitioner herein may have stolen the cheques for misusing the same. The police authorities were requested to investigate into the matter.
Pursuant to the previous order of September 5, 2018, the petitioner has met the investigating officer and, according to the report of the investigating officer dated September 18, 2018, the petitioner has made over some documents available with him but has refused to answer several other questions. It is the perception of the State, based on the material gathered in course of the investigation, that the petitioner has entered into transactions with third parties apparently on behalf of the school and has taken advance payments or loans. The State apprehends that it is only a bit of the entire fraudulent transaction devised by the petitioner that has come to light.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that given the nature of the complaint, a roving enquiry is not called for and the investigating agency may have exceeded its brief in looking at other matters which are not covered in the complaint. It is true that the formal complaint refers only to the dishonoured cheque and the suspicion that the petitioner may 3 have been behind it; but there was also a request to investigate into the petitioner's conduct qua the affairs of the trust and the school. It does not, prima facie, appear that the investigation conducted by the police has gone beyond the complaint or the perception expressed in Court may be beyond this scope of the investigation.
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The investigating agency is directed to take immediate steps to take the petitioner into custody to unearth the extent of the petitioner's involvement in matters pertaining to the trust and the matters that may prejudice the trust.
(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)