Allowed

Amit Gupta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC25 Apr 2023CRM (DB)/1616/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to four petitioners accused of vishing/cyber fraud on parity with another co-accused granted bail by the Apex Court despite prior bail cancellation, subject to strict conditions including reporting and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 each, two sureties, subject to conditions to appear in court, not tamper with evidence, report fortnightly to CID, and not leave jurisdiction except

Amit Gupta and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

25.04.2023 Sl. No.29 akd [ALLOWED]

¶2

C. R. M. (DB) 1616 of 2023

¶3

In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.04.2023 in connection with Kenda Police Station Case No.17 dated 17.02.2022 under Sections 419/420/406/468/471/467/413/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

And

¶5

In Re: Amit Gupta & Ors.

¶6

… … Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Jaydeep Biswas Mr. Souryadeep Das Mr. Kaushik Ghosh

¶8

… … for the petitioners

¶9

Mr. Rudradipta Nandy .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Mrs. Sonali Das

¶10

… … for the State

¶11

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are in custody for more than 340 days. Co-accused have been enlarged on bail. Accordingly, they pray for bail on parity.

¶12

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits petitioner no.1 is a Senior Executive. He played a pivotal role in the organised crime activity of defrauding individuals through vishing/cyber fraud and other means.

¶13

We have considered the materials on record. Case involves an organised crime racket to cheat individuals through vishing/cyber fraud. Noticing the nature of crime, investigation was transferred to a specialised agency. Bail prayer of co-accused viz. Sandip Biswas was cancelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thereafter, more than a year had lapsed but only one witness had been examined. Prosecution proposed to examine 78 witnesses and there was little possibility of the trial concluding in the near future. Under such circumstances, this Court released co-accused viz. Sandip Biswas on bail. The said co-accused is

¶14

¶15

the owner of the company which had indulged in illegal activities. Hence, we are inclined to extend the same privilege to the petitioners also.

¶16

Therefore, the petitioners, namely (1) Amit Gupta, (2) Sunny Khawriya, (3) Mahesh Maheswari & (4) Himadri Ghosh , 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia subject to condition that the said petitioners shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that the petitioners, while on bail, shall not leave the jurisdiction of their respective police station where they reside except for the purpose of attending court proceedings and shall report to the Special Superintendent, HO, CID, Bhawani Bhawan, Kolkata once in a fortnight until further orders.

¶17

In the event they fail to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail automatically without reference to this court.

¶18

The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.

¶19

Trial court shall ensure that the trial is concluded at the earliest and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given. In the event, there is vacancy in the trial court, Judge-in-charge shall record the evidence.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial at an early date preferably within one year from the next date fixed for recording evidence without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶21

We have noted that delay in the matter was due to lack of synergy between the Special Investigation Team (SIT) attached to CID

¶22

¶23

and the district police administration. This has resulted in delay in progress of trial.

¶24

To resolve the imbroglio, we direct the Director General of Police, West Bengal to instruct the Superintendents and Commissioners of Police of each district and Commissionerate to form independent special investigation team in each district and Commissionerate comprising of a senior police officer not lower than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police in the district and Commissionerate respectively and an Inspector, Cyber Police Station who shall coordinate with the SIT constituted at the State level for the purpose of investigation and prosecution of crimes involving cyber fraud of similar nature.

¶25

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director General of Police, West Bengal for due compliance.

¶26

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶27

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Amit Gupta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gupta and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Halder Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Amar Arya @ Singh Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

MD Iqbal Hussain @ Iqbal @ Iqbal Qureshi Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Avirup Majumder and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Ritaja Bhadra Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Bikram Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal