Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Finding prima facie strong incriminating materials and noting ongoing investigation, the court denied discretion to grant bail on allegations of cheating via call centres.
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
23.12.2021
Court No.32 rpan / 522
CRM 4984 of 2021
In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ;
And
In re: Sri Tushar Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty, Ms. Geniya Mukherjee, Mr. Yashraj Roy, Ms. Poulami Bose, Ms. Zeba Rashid
… for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bivas Chatterjee
… for the State.
Apprehending arrest in connection with Manicktala Police Station Case No. 176 dated 02.10.2020 under Sections 66C/66D/84B/66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 120B/419/420/465/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the present application has been preferred.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He has no nexus with the alleged offence. He is not a resident of Kolkata and he is not in any manner connected with Techraise E.R.P. Solutions (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. and Eduglints Consulting Services. The allegations are omnibus in nature and in the said conspectus, custodial interrogation is not warranted.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and submits that the petitioner and others are running call centres and they had duped
2
foreigners. There are incriminating materials which clearly reveal the direct nexus of the petitioner with the alleged offence, Furthermore, the investigation is still continuing and as such, custodial interrogation is necessary.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials in the case diary, including the statements of the witnesses, as recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Prima facie , there are strong incriminating materials on record against the petitioner. Considering the nature of accusations and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour, more so when, investigation has not yet been concluded.
The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM No.4984 of 2021 is dismissed.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Sugato Majumdar, J) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in a cheating case involving IT offences, is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Whether custodial interrogation is warranted given the incriminating materials on record.
Whether the investigation concludes sufficiently to exercise discretion in favour of anticipatory bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sri Tushar Kumar Singh
The State
Sugato Majumdar
Tapabrata Chakraborty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
