Judgment · High Court

Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Santanu Maji, Ms. Rajashree Tah, Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Mr. Subhayu Das, Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty, Advocates … … For the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Dipankar Pramanick, Advocates … …For the State Initially, interim anticipatory bail was granted by the order dated August 11, 2022. The same was confirmed on August 25, 2022. While passing the order dated August 25, 2022, the Court recorded that, the private opposite party did not misuse the liberty of interim bail. Moreover, the incident alleged was in respect of the year 2004, meaning thereby that the incident started nearly two decades ago. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount involved is in excess of Rs.9 crores. There is no dispute to the fact that the incident started occurring from the year 2004 onwards. The police complaint was filed in the year 2021 through a proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2 The impugned order cannot be said to be visited with any perversity. In such circumstances, we are unable to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, CRM (DB) 4378 of 2022 is dismissed. (Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)