Faijul @ MD Faijul Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal

13.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.13. Rakib (Rejected)

CRM (M) 1411 of 2025

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Karandighi Police Station case no. 324 of 2021 dated 09.07.2021 under Sections 409/419/420/468/471/413/467/218/195A/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Faijul @ Md. Faijul Rahaman

¶6

……Petitioner. .....for the Petitioner. ……for the State.

¶7

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv, Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Soham De Dhara Mr. Akash Ghosh Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Ld. APP Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee

¶8

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for about two years two months and till date charges have not been framed, while the prosecution from time to time has submitted charge-sheet and supplementary chargesheet. According to the petitioner in total there are 111 witnesses on whom the prosecution relies upon to prove its case and there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion. As such, petitioner be released on bail.

¶9

Additionally, it has been contended by the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner that having been in custody for more than two years, petitioner has made out a case for bail. To that effect learned senior advocate has relied upon Arvind Dham –Vs. –

¶10

2

¶11

Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30, reference has been made to paragraphs 6, 12, 15 and 18 of the said judgment which reads as follows:

¶12

“6. The gravamen of the allegation against the appellant is that he is the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud which was a well-orchestrated scheme, executed at his behest, involving diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, resulting in substantial wrongful loss to Public Sector Banks.

¶13

12. It is submitted that the allegations in the predicate offence allege a total bank fraud to the tune of INR 673.35 crores, therefore, the figure of INR 38,000 crores is deliberately exaggerated to project the instant case as India's largest bank fraud to justify the prolonged custody of the appellant. It is urged that it is settled law that economic offences cannot be classified as separate class on its own for determination of grant of bail2. It is also stated that the appellant is neither a flight risk nor can he tamper with the evidence. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the accused is alleged to have committed5. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on

¶15

3

¶16

that basis6. It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime7. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial8.

¶17

18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail. ”

¶18

Reliance has also been placed upon Mohd. Enamul Haque – Vs. – Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4069, paragraph 5 of the said judgement is quoted below:

¶19

“5. We are inclined to grant bail to the appellant not only on the ground of parity but also for the reason that the trial is yet to commence. Admittedly, there are 85 witnesses. The trial has not even started. The appellant has been incarcerated for more than 2½ years in the present case. Thus, even if we leave out any period of incarceration undergone in a predicate offence, a continued incarceration where the appellant is not entirely at fault for the completion of trial due to a prolonged

¶20

4

¶21

delay, would enure to his benefit for the purpose of granting bail. ”

¶22

It has been contended that the quantum which was involved in the said cases were much more and the Hon’ble Apex Court after having taken into account the period of detention emphasized on the said factor and released the accused persons in the case.

¶23

Learned advocate appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail. It has been submitted that some of the accused persons were absconding and thereafter the case had to be split up. To that effect presently all the processes have been exhausted and the learned trial Court is awaiting for further progressing the case. There is every possibility that charges would be considered in the month of August, 2026. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor he has received instruction that the number of witnesses are being reduced to about 55 and the prosecution intends to proceed with the case considering the gravity of the offence.

¶24

So far as the complicity of the present petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner being responsible for the portal, being a Para-teacher by way of fake and forged documents withdrew money in respect of minority scholarship and other schemes. The prosecution case relate to about Rs.92/- crores being misappropriated. The properties which the petitioner are enjoying according to the State are not to the know source of income of the present petitioner.

¶25

5

¶26

On the other hand learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner added that petitioner was initially granted anticipatory bail, his anticipatory bail was cancelled by the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court without any success. Immediately, the petitioner surrendered before the learned Jurisdictional Court.

¶27

I have taken into account the contention advanced by the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as that of the State. A report was also submitted which is of relevance, as there is another case against the petitioner being Karandighi PS Case no. 214 of 2022 dated 24.04.2022 which is also involving similar offences.

¶28

Having considered the antecedents of the present petitioner and that the case till date has not proceeded to the stage of consideration of charges. Presently, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶29

Petitioner shall renew his prayer for bail after the stage of consideration of charges are over.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 1411 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶31

Case Diary be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the State.

¶32

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶33

6

¶34

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.