Dismissed

Pranjal Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC13 Oct 2020AB/1584/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected two linked anticipatory bail applications filed by company employees accused of misappropriating funds. The court held that the severity of the allegations, combined with the accused's non-cooperation and sudden resignation, necessitated custodial interrogation and denied pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Both anticipatory bail applications were rejected. Case diary sent back.

Pranjal Das Vs the State of Assam — Corruption | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010089972020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : AB 1584/2020

¶5

1:PRANJAL DAS S/O- SRI BIMALENDU DAS, R/O- H/NO/ B-3/C B-BLOCK, SHIVALAY HOUSING SOCIETY, BYE LANE NO.4, JAYMATI NAGAR, PANDU, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781012

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

Linked Case : AB 1796/2020

¶11

1:SMTI KARISHMA KAYAL W/O SRI ABHIJIT KARNANI R/O FLAT NO. 4B1 DISH ENCLAVE, ARUNODOI PATH OPPOSITE CENTRAL MALL CHRISTIAN BASTI, PIN-781005, GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M), ASSAM P/R/A CAMILA MINERALS BAKHRODA ROAD, NEAR SAPRAO KA GURHA AMET RAJASAMAND RAJASTHAN, PIN-313333

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S S DEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 13-10-2020

¶19

Both the Applications filed under Section 438 CrPC are taken up together for consideration as they relate to the same CID Police Station case No. 03/2020, registered under Sections 120(B)/408/ 420/467/477A.

¶20

Smti. Karishma Kayal, the petitioner in AB No. 1796/2020, was working as Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Deputy CEO in M/s LB Group of Companies since 01.12.2015.

¶21

Sri Pranjal Das, the petitioner in AB No. 1584/2020, was working as an Assistant Accountant Executive in M/s LB Group of Companies since 18.04.2016.

¶22

An ejahar was filed by Dr. Nibedita Barthakur, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of M/s LB Group of Companies, alleging that during her tenure the petitioner, Smti. Karishma Kayal, in connivance with Pranjal Das, misappropriated a sum of Rs. 53,14,14,469/- (approx) of the company by various deceitful manners. It is alleged that it is only during the leave period obtained by Karishma on account of her marriage since 08.01.2020 to 08.02.2020 serious procedural anomalies with regard to financial transactions, mishandling of cash amounts, wrongful disbursement of cash amount, forgery of documents was detected leading to huge financial loss to the company. A detailed course of affairs conducted by the above petitioners were reflected in the long FIR as to how Karishma Kayal has withdrawn the unauthorized funds from the company for her own use by flouting the procedure.

¶23

As regards Pranjal Das, it has been submitted that Karishma Kayal in connivance with Pranjal Das has misappropriated the aforesaid amount and during the leave period of Karishma Kayal, said Pranjal Das, in a surprising manner, suddenly tendered his resignation on 13.01.2020 and stopped coming to the office, although his resignation was not accepted by the company and he was instructed to attend office. His conduct, including the abruptness and timing of his

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

resignation together with his refusal to attend office is suggestive of his connivance with the coaccused Karishma Kayal.

¶26

Smti. Karishma Kayal has, however, denied all the allegations as averred in the FIR and has contended that the management of the company has raised false and baseless allegations only to victimize her and filed the FIR without waiting for the decision of the enquiry committee that was constituted after initiating disciplinary proceeding against her.

¶27

On the other hand, contention of Pranjal Das is also on similar footing that he has been falsely implicated by the informant out of grudge and he tendered his resignation to the authority and the same cannot be treated as his complicity in the crime. Otherwise he has a right to look for better employment. So far as the anomalies in petty cash disbursal, it is submitted that it was primarily handled by one Office Assistant, namely, Anandaram Boro and he carried out his duty as per direction of his immediate superior Karishma Kayal.

¶28

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the case diary as well as the documents annexed.

¶29

The prime allegation against Smti. Karishma Kayal is for misappropriation of money and other articles of the company of the informant. In the meantime, a thorough investigation has been carried out and the Investigating Officer has submitted a detailed report with objection for granting bail. It has been submitted that during investigation it has been established that the accused petitioner, Karishma Kayal, connived with the subordinate staff of the company and masterminded manipulation of records, diversion of money through fictitious entries, and misappropriated company’s fund for her own benefit.

¶30

The following irregularities have been observed so far:

¶31

Ø In the group of accounts under financial ledger Head “Land and Building at Ulubari” a sum of Rs. 21,18,000.00 is shown to have incurred by way of cash expenditures as on 31.03.2019, whereas there is no supporting evidence and the entire money has been misappropriated by her.

¶32

Ø In the financial year 2017-2018, under financial ledger Head “Unsecured Loan from Director” an amount of Rs. 3,84,080.00 is shown to have been transferred for land development, but there is no supporting documents.

¶33

Ø In the financial year 2018-2019, under financial ledger Head “Unsecured Loan from Director” an amount of Rs. 2,92,000.00 is shown to have been transferred for land development, but there is no supporting documents.

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

Ø She has also not returned the laptop issued to her by the company which contained lots of DATA of the company. She also fraudulently misappropriated the vehicle belonging to the company.

¶36

The Investigating Officer has stated that the above are few examples of misappropriation and there are still many other facets to be unearthed about such falsification of accounts in view of the allegations in the FIR for which investigation is going on.

¶37

Further it is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the informant has filed additional FIR narrating details of the irregularities committed by the accused petitioners and as they have not cooperated with the investigation their custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the real picture.

¶38

I have gone through the materials in the case diary as well as through the documents which reflect that a thorough interrogation of the accused petitioners is necessary to unearth the entire gamut of the allegations and as the petitioners have not properly cooperated with the investigation, their custodial interrogation is necessary. The accused Pranjal Das was working closely with Karishma Kayal as an Accountant and dealt with the financial transactions of the company along with Ms. Kayal and the sudden resignation on his part is a crucial aspect to suggest his complicity in the offence. His resignation is not yet accepted by the company.

¶39

The entire matter reflects a serious economic abuse on the part of the employees of a company and the matter should reach proper conclusion by way of thorough investigation. Considering the severity of the allegations and suggested complicity of the accused petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that privilege of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to the petitioners.

¶40

Accordingly, both the Anticipatory Bail Applications are rejected. Return the case diary.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Pranjal Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranjal Das v. the State of Assam

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

Mokbul Hussian Khan Vs the State of Assam

Dhrubajyoti Das Vs the State of Assam

Tapan Ch. Boro Vs the State of Assam

Smti Gitanjali Devi and 3 Ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Hajera Khatun Vs the State of Assam

Lokman Ali @ Lokman Akand and Anr. Vs the State of Assam