Sanjit Chakroborty v. Union India through CBI
Case at a glance
- Bench
- GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Outcome
Bail granted
accused be released on bail as the circumstance of his having not been arrested during
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s. 70
- Chit Fund Act, 1982 ss. 76, 79
- RBI and SEBI Act
- Commission Enquiry Act, 1952
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 41A, 438(2)
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the CBI : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. A. Anand, Advocate : Mr. PAS Pati, Spl. P. P. Order No. / Dated :23.02.2023. The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 38(S) of 2017-EOW, Ranchi arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.401 of 2013 for the offence registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and Sections 76/79 of Chit Fund Act, 1982 pending in the Court of learned is pressed into motion. Earlier the case was registered by Jamtara Police being Jamtara P.S. Case No.401 of 2013 investigation of which was taken over by the CBI pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(PIL) No.1635 of 2014. Petitioner is one of the Director of Yugantar Reality Limited and it is alleged that without any valid paper and license, investment was being raised under different schemes like F.D., R.D. in contravention to the provisions of RBI and SEBI Act.
After investigation, charge sheet has been filed by the CBI. During the period 2011-13, a total deposit of Rs.2,83,86,764/- to branch of Jamtara, Deoghar, Pakur and Sahebganj, out of which only Rs.92,700/- repaid to the investors. Maturity amount of the deposits were not returned. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he had resigned from the Company in 2010 and had not solicited any deposit and received amount. The charge sheet has been submitted and this petitioner cooperated with the investigation and there is no requirement of judicial custody for the purpose of investigation. After receiving the complaint from different depositors, Government of West Bengal form a Commission under Commission Enquiry Act, 1952 in the year 2014 under the Chairmanship of Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen and received the entire deposits, properties of the Company in Case No.03 of 2014.
Operative part
Later, a case has been registered by CBI under economic offence being RC Case No.6/E/2017-KOL whereupon the petitioner received notice and appeared as and when required by the CBI. Reliance is placed on Amanpreet Singh Vs. CBI passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021, wherein it has been held that where an accused for non bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation, in such scenario it was appropriate that accused be released on bail as the circumstance of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody as itself sufficient to entitle him to be released bail. Learned Spl. P. P. for the CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that specific role has been attributed to the petitioner as it has come in the charge-sheet that amount was transferred in the personal bank account of the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the petitioner and others were carrying the business without any due permission from the RBI. Lastly, it is submitted that facts of the authority relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts of the instant case as the said judgment was passed in the context of less serious offence. I find much force in the argument made on behalf of the petitioner. There is specific mention in the charge-sheet that the accounts were operated by Ajay Chakraborty and Sujay Chakraborty and not this petitioner in which the amount was credited. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear under Section 41A Cr.P.C. as and when required and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Anit/sandeep (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: accused be released on bail as the circumstance of his having not been arrested during
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 70; Chit Fund Act, 1982 — ss. 76, 79; RBI and SEBI Act; Commission Enquiry Act, 1952; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 41A, 438(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.