Tripura High Court
Abhijit Datta vs The State Of Tripura on 13 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 194
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
AB 87/2018
Abhijit Datta
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Basu, Advocate
Mr. S. Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. R. Gupta, Advocate
Mr. K. Roy, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Roy Barman, Addl. PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
13/08/2018
Heard Mr. A. Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Additional PP appearing for the State-respondent. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, namely, Abhijit Datta in connection with case No. Special(TIPD)01/2018 pending before the learned Special Judge, Kailashahar under Section 3 of the Tripura Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2000 and under Sections 420/120(B)/406/409/34 IPC. Mr. A Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP has produced the Case Diary. From the case diary, the name of the petitioner is found along with the names of the other Board of Directors. On the basis of the complaint lodged by one Shri Bidyut Kanti Choudhury, the Officer-in-charge of the Kumarghat Police Station has registered the case being Kumarghat Police Station Case No. 2015KGT057 under Section 3 of the TIPD Rules, 2011 and under sections 420/120(B) of IPC. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the complainant did not receive his maturity value for his certificates from the Rose Valley, Kumarghat Branch.
On 30.11.2007, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the Rose Valley, Kumarghat Branch which got matured on Page 2 of 3 30.05.2014 but he did not receive the said amount. It is further alleged that a total maturity amount of Rs.9,26,000/- of the complainant is pending for payment with the Rose Valley, Kumarghat Branch. Being aggrieved by such non-payment of maturity amount, the complainant has lodged the FIR against the petitioner.
Mr. A. Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 63 years and he is a cardiac patient having a pace maker installed on his person. He further submits that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer has already filed the charge sheet and at present, the petitioner is in a position to face the trial.
Per contra, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner is one of the members of the Board of Directors and crores of rupees has been misappropriated. The allegations leveled against the petitioner fulfill the ingredients of Section 3 of the TIPD Act as well as Sections 420/120(B) of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has resigned from the Board of Directors and he was one of the informal Directors in the Board of Directors having no financial powers.
I have perused the case diary. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since in the instant case the charge sheet has already been submitted and trial is about to commence before the learned Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Criminal Misc.9(1) of 2018 and considering the age and illness of the petitioner, he may be granted anticipatory bail with some conditions.
Accordingly, the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail. However, in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid PS case, the accused- petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- Page 3 of 3 with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with the following conditions:
i. During the course of trial, the petitioner shall make himself available before the Officer-in-Charge, Kasba police station, West Bengal once in a week; ii. During the course of trial, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kailashahar on each and every date so fixed by the court.
In the event of any prayer being made by the petitioner for relaxation of the conditions, the trial court shall consider the same, in accordance with law, on the basis of the prevailing circumstances. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is allowed and accordingly disposed of. Case Diary as produced by the learned Addl. PP is returned back.
JUDGE Saikat