Allowed

Savita Devi Mall & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC11 Mar 2021CRM/4725/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by two senior citizens. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted as a substantial amount had already been paid to the complainant and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount, one local.

Savita Devi Mall & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

11.03.2021 Item No.03 Ct.No.28 Subha Allowed

¶2

C.R.M. 4725 of 2020

¶3

(Via Video Conference)

¶4

In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶5

In the matter of : Savita Devi Mall & Anr. .. Petitioners. Mr. Debasish Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanat Das Mr. Pran Gopal Das. …... For the Petitioners. Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra Mr. Sayantan Das …..for the de facto complainant. Mr. Prasun Kumar Datta, APP Mr. Santanu Deb Roy ... For the State.

¶6

Apprehending arrest in connection with Shakespear Sarani Police Station Case No. 240 of 2019 dated 17-122019 under Sections 120B/403/417/418/420 of the Indian Penal Code, the present application has been filed.

¶7

Records reveal that by an order dated 24^th December, 2020, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioners for a period of six weeks and the petitioners were

¶8

¶9

directed to submit an affidavit enclosing particulars with regard to the payments made post August, 2020.

¶10

Mr. Roy, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that on the basis of the agreement executed, Merlin Projects Limited had already paid an amount of Rs.41,46,886/-(Rupees forty one lakh forty six thousand eight hundred and eighty six only) to the de facto complainant.

¶11

He further submits that subsequent to January, 2021, an amount of Rs.5,94,415/- (Five lakh ninety-four thousand four hundred and fifteen only) has also been paid and a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/-(ten lakh only) would be paid by Merlin Projects Limited to the de facto complainant within a fortnight. The documents and the supplementary affidavits filed in support of such contention, be kept with the record.

¶12

Mr. Bhagat, learned advocate appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.

¶13

Mr. Datta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that a substantial amount is yet to be paid by the petitioners to the de facto complainant.

¶14

Having heard the learned advocates and considering the materials on record, we find that a substantial amount has been paid to the de facto complainant.

¶15

¶16

In the said conspectus, we are of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, both of whom are senior citizens, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶17

Accordingly, we allow the application for anticipatory bail and direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners, namely, 1. Savita Devi Mall & 2. Shree Mohan Mall shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶18

The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 4725 of 2020 is, thus, disposed of.

¶19

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶20

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Savita Devi Mall & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Devi Mall & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haider Sk@Haidar Sekh@Haydar Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Baitul Sk@Baitulla Sk@Baidul Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Maser Ali@Maser Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Halima Bibi@Halima Khatun Bibi and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Faju Sk @ Sekh Faju Vs State of West Bengal

Abdul Miah Vs State of West Bengal