Dismissed¶¶18

Kiran Devi Agarwal @ Kiran Devi Agarwala v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC24 Nov 2025CRM (A)/3093/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application rejected (dismissed); Section 438 CrPC 1973; Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Harishchandrapur PS Case No.315/2023 dated 12.04.2023; Sections 406/409/420 IPC; paddy misappropriated; customized mill rice; Food and Supplies Department agreement 2021; forged signature; resignation 2016 not uploaded on ROC website; co-accused in custody; Investigating Officer influenced; investigation reassigned; departmental proceeding against erstwhile IO; incriminating materials in case diary; Jay Sengupta J.; CRM (A) 3093 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Weighing the counsel's submissions and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, the court found this not to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ¶¶17

Kiran Devi Agarwal @ Kiran Devi Agarwala Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, 1973 (corresponding to Section 482 BNSS, 2023) should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Harishchandrapur PS Case No.315/2023 under Sections 406/409/420 IPC.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Weighing the counsel's submissions and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, the court found this not to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The application for anticipatory bail, CRM (A) 3093 of 2025, was rejected.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail refused — CRM (A) 3093 of 2025, decided 24.11.2025 (Jay Sengupta, J.). Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Kiran Devi Agarwal @ Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwala in connection with Harishchandrapur PS Case No.315/2023 dated 12.04.2023 under Sections 406/409/420 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner urged that she had resigned from the company in 2016 (a fact not uploaded on the ROC website) and that in 2022 her side had initiated a criminal proceeding against the other director for forging her signature on a purported 2021 agreement with the Food and Supplies Department. Counsel for the State opposed, submitting that the petitioner and other directors were present at the execution of the 2021 agreement and remain directors; a co-accused on the same footing is in custody; paddy supplied for conversion into customized mill rice was misappropriated, physical verification showing no such goods in their custody; and an earlier Investigating Officer was apparently influenced, the investigation having since been given to another Officer with a departmental proceeding ongoing against the erstwhile IO. Considering these submissions and other incriminating materials in the case diary, the court held this not a fit case for anticipatory bail and rejected the application.

24.11.2025

Sl. No.08

CRM (A) 3093 of 2025

¶5

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Harishchandrapur PS Case No.315/2023 dated 12.04.2023 under Sections 406/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

And

¶7

In the matter of: Kiran Devi Agarwal @ Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwala

¶8

… petitioner

¶9

Mr. Mritunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. Imadul Hoque,

¶10

Mr. S. Chatterjee. …for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Antarikshya Basu, Mr. Debarshi Brahma.

¶12

…for the State.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is not the prime accused in this case. The petitioner had resigned from the company in question way back in 2016. However, this fact was not uploaded in the website of the ROC. In 2022, the petitioner’s side initiated a criminal proceeding against the other director for forging her signature and putting it in a purported agreement executed in 2021 with the Food and Supplies Department. In 2023, this FIR was lodged by the other side.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the petitioner and the other directors were very much there at the time of execution of agreement in 2021 and are still directors of the company. One of the accused standing on the same footing is in custody. It was agreed with the Food and Supplies Department that the petitioner would take the huge amount of paddy in question and convert the same into customized mill rice. Physical verification

¶15

¶16

showed that there were no such goods in their custody. They had misappropriated the entire goods that were given to them. In fact, the accused had apparently influenced one of the earlier Investigating Officers. The investigation have now been given to another Officer and a departmental proceeding is going on against the erstwhile Investigating Officer.

¶17

Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.

¶18

The application for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 3093 of 2025 is, thus, rejected.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

¶20

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

Kiran Devi Agarwal @ Kiran Devi Agarwala v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Devi Agarwal @ Kiran Devi Agarwala v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Suman Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal

Saijuddin Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Roni Chakraborty@Rani Chakraborty Vs Theate of West Bengal

Hossain Mondal @ Hasan Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Dipankar Mandal @ Krishna Mandal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.