Partly allowed

Subodh Adhikary v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Sept 2022WPA/20866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court modified the procedure for CBI investigation regarding a Ponzi scheme, mandating a notice period of at least seven days for document production and seventy-two hours for appearance without documents.

What did the court decide?

The CBI must give at least 28 days notice for document production or 72 hours for appearance; interrogation limited to 3 hours/day; no arrest for 10 days once accused is proposed.

Subodh Adhikary Vs Central Bureau of Investigation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

12.09.2022 KC(8)

¶2

WPA 20866 of 2022 Subodh Adhikary

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

¶5

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Mr. Dipayan Das….……………..For the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, Ld. Assist. Sol. Gen., Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta..……….For the C.B.I.

¶7

A ponzi scam is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶8

As of now the petitioner is not an accused. However, the above bureau carried out a search in his premises on 4^th September, 2022. It is in the process of investigating the case. Notices have been issued to him under Sections 91 and 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia, to appear before the investigating officer with the documents mentioned therein.

¶9

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that it was not possible for the petitioner to submit the documents on a day’s notice. Secondly, although up to now the petitioner is not named as an accused in the First Information report or charge-sheet, while appearing before the said officer or being interrogated

¶10

¶11

by him, suddenly the petitioner may be identified to be an accused and arrested.

¶12

Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, learned Assistant Solicitor General, very fairly admits that the petitioner up to now is only being called as a witness and that there is no lack of intention on his part to cooperate with the investigating agency.

¶13

Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel, we pass the following order disposing of the writ application:

¶14

(i) The Central Bureau of Investigation will be free to issue another set of notices under Section 91 and 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the petitioner asking him to appear on a day with the documents not earlier than 28^th September, 2022. A self attested copy of the passport of the petitioner shall, however, be submitted to the Central Bureau of Investigation by 72 (seventy two) hours from date.

¶15

(ii) If the petitioner’s presence is required for investigation without the documents, he shall be given at least 72 (seventy two) hours’ notice to appear.

¶16

(iii) Interrogation of the petitioner shall be at a stretch and not more than three hours on a

¶17

¶18

particular day. He may again be summoned on 72 hours’ notice.

¶19

(iv) Should at any point of time the Central Bureau of Investigation propose to accuse the petitioner of any alleged offence and start a criminal case against him, he shall not be arrested for a period of 10 (ten) days from such decision to enable him to avail of his remedies against arrest available in law.

¶20

This order is subject to the condition that the petitioner shall always cooperate with the investigation, failing which the Central Bureau of Investigation will be at liberty to apply before this court for appropriate modification of this order.

¶21

WPA 20866 of 2022 is, thus, disposed of.

¶22

As affidavits were not invited, the allegations contained in the writ application are deemed not to have been admitted.

¶23

(I.P. MUKERJI, J.)

¶24

(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)

¶25

Subodh Adhikary v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Adhikary v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.

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

Anima Bhandari Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Dabir Halsana and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Arnab Sen Vs State of West Bengal

MD Mostak @ MD Mustak @ MD Mustaque Vs State of West Bengal

Hebla Roy @ Surajit Roy Vs State of West Bengal

Vishsal Shukla Alias Vishal Sukla Alias Bishal Shukla Vs State of West Bengal