Allowed

Hasibul Haque v. the C.B.I.

Calcutta HC30 Jun 2022CRM/7263/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Ponzi scam case involving over Rs.400 crores, the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the petitioner arrested in 2017 after the chargesheet was submitted in 2017. The court imposed conditions including passport deposit and monitoring of property transactions in West Bengal and Assam.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; passport to be deposited; CBI to notify relevant authorities regarding property restrictions.

Hasibul Haque Vs the C.B.I. — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶2

30.06.2022 S.D Item no.2

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

¶4

CRM 7263 of 2019

¶5

Hasibul Haque -vs-

¶6

The C.B.I.

¶7

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee Mr. Partha Sarathi Das …For the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Anirban Mitra … For the C.B.I.

¶9

In re: CRAN 1 of 2021 CRAN 2 of 2022 CRAN 3 of 2022

¶10

The accused petitioner is allegedly involved in a ponzi scam. According to learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the amount involved is over Rs.400 crores. The properties out of which the allegedly misappropriated amount can be recovered are situated in West Bengal and Assam.

¶11

Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that on this accusation the petitioner was arrested on 3^rd August, 2017 and as early as 30^th October, 2017 the chargesheet was submitted. Thereafter, nothing has happened.

¶12

What is before this court is an application for bail of the petitioner and three applications for interim bail.

¶13

In the applications for interim bail the petitioner says that he has two daughters. One of them aged nine years is suffering from a degenerative disease of the bones for which life expectancy is low, not much beyond adolescence.

¶14

The other daughter has till today not contacted the disease. Another daughter of the petitioner has recently died of the same disease.

¶15

¶16

The petitioner has to take his ill daughter to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for treatment. This is the ground mentioned in the interim applications for bail.

¶17

As far as the main application is concerned it is submitted on behalf of the CBI that if the petitioner is released he might destroy the evidence or deal with the properties.

¶18

From time to time this court has granted interim bail to the petitioner to get his daughter treated in Delhi.

¶19

The first question before us is whether his application for grant of bail should be allowed or not?

¶20

This is relevant because even if we grant the application for interim bail, the petitioner would be coming to court time and again for extension of the interim order or for another interim order while the application for bail is pending.

¶21

The petitioner was arrested in August, 2017. The charge sheet was submitted on 30^th October, 2017. We presume the investigation is complete. Considering the case of the CBI that further investigation would reveal deeper involvement of the petitioner they have had enough time in these five years to conduct and complete the same.

¶22

The question of personal liberty of an individual accused of an offence, whatever may be the gravity thereof, is involved.

¶23

The petitioner is in custody for five years, although, from time to time enlarged on interim bail.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances above, we are of the view that the petitioner should now be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

A. The passport of the petitioner will remain deposited with the CBI.

¶26

B. The CBI will send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretaries of the appropriate Ministry of West Bengal and Assam. The said Principal Secretaries shall transmit

¶27

¶28

this order to all the Land Registering Authorities in the two States with the strict instruction that no dealing in the said properties made by the petitioner would be entertained by the said Registering Authorities without modification of this order by a competent court.

¶29

C. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when summoned and also at least once in a fortnight.

¶30

The application CRAN 3 of 2022 for bail is allowed.

¶31

The other two applications (CRAN 1 of 2021, CRAN 2 of 2022) for interim bail are disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)

¶33

( I.P. Mukerji, J.)

Hasibul Haque v. the C.B.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasibul Haque v. the C.B.I.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Kumar Roy Vs Mukul Chandra Roy and Ors.

Smt Rinku Jaiswal and Ors. Vs Sambhunath Tiwari and Anr.

Upendra Choudhury Vs M/S J K Industries Ltd. & Ors.

Vikash Kumar Sahu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Awdesh Kumar Singh Vs C.B.I.

Hena Moyra & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.