Allowed

Lila Dhar and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022AB/1021/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted absolute pre-arrest bail to two petitioners facing cheating charges related to fraudulent ATM transaction claims. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary provided the petitioners cooperated with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted was made absolute subject to conditions of cooperation, non-inducement of witnesses, non-obstruction of investigation, maintaining law and order, and regular presence du

Lila Dhar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam — Cheating and Forgery | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No. 1/4

¶2

GAHC010071282022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : AB/1021/2022

¶6

LILA DHAR AND ANR W/O LATE RUKMINI RANJAN DHAR R/O WARD NO. 4, SILCHAR, P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶7

2: SRI RANA JAY DHAR S/OLATE RUKMINI RANJAN DHAR R/O WARD NO. 4 SILCHAR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 11-08-2022

¶15

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

¶16

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC],

¶17

Page No. 2/4

¶18

the petitioners viz. [i] Smt. Lila Dhar & [ii] Sri Ranajay Dhar have approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Silchar Police Station Case no. 2745/2015 [G.R. Case no. 5075/2015] registered under Section 420, Indian Penal Code [IPC].

¶19

The Chief Manager, United Bank of India, Cachar Regional Office lodged the First Information Report [FIR] on 07.10.2015 before the Officer In-Charge, Silchar Police Station. In the FIR, the official has reported about a set of claims of similar nature made before the bank regarding some fault in the operation of the ATM Machines which resulted into failed transactions. On an enquiry, the bank found that the failed transactions were related to ATM cards of banks other than the United Bank of India and the names of the card-holders in those failed transactions emerged as either Sri Sudip Dhar or Sri Ranajay Dhar. Thus, a suspicion arose about wrongful claims. The informant has mentioned that a total of 50 [fifty] claims amounting to Rs. 4,32,000/- were received from one Sri Sudip Dhar, 12 [twelve] claims for Rs. 1,24,000/- were received from one Sri Ranajay Dhar [the petitioner no. 2] and 2 [two] claims for Rs. 20,000/- were received from Smt. Lila Dhar [the petitioner no. 1]. It has been apprehended from the pattern that the accounts were operated and transactions were done with the intention to make claims fraudulently. It is alleged that the claims in relation to those transactions showing them as failed ones and lodging of complaints were with the intention to make wrongful claims against the bank.

¶20

Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has received the case diary, has submitted on the basis of the materials available in the case diary, collected during the course of investigation carried out so far, that investigation has revealed that it is Sri Sudip Dhar who is incidentally the son of the petitioner no. 1 and the brother of the petitioner no. 2 respectfully, was the mastermind in respect of those failed transactions and his statement recorded under Section 161, CrPC, available in the case diary, where he has admitted that he has taken the ATM cards in the name of the 2 [two] petitioners and carrying out a large number of transactions in various ATMs machines of the informant bank, he had misused the

¶21

Page No. 3/4

¶22

cards of these 2 [two] petitioners and all those transactions which, according to the bank, are failed transactions were carried out by him with mala fide intention.

¶23

Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India [RBI], Guwahati in respect of a claim made by Sri Sudip Dhar [Annexure-4] wherein the Banking Ombudsman has awarded a sum of money in favour of Sri Sudip Dhar when he lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman with regard to the sum of those failed ATM transactions. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas that after interim protection was granted to the petitioner on 18.04.2022, both the petitioners have appeared before the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case and they are ready and willing to extend their further assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case.

¶24

Having regard to the allegations made in the FIR dated 07.05.2015 and the materials available in the case dairy which go to indicate prima facie that it was one Sri Sudip Dhar, who was found connected with those failed ATM transactions, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners for the purpose of carrying out further investigation of the case, is not necessary and their release on pre-arrest bail, at this stage of investigation, is not likely to bring any adverse impact in the further investigation of the case, provided they continue to extend their assistance and co-operation in the further investigation of the case.

¶25

Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the petitioners by order dated 18.04.2022, is hereby made absolute, subject to the following conditions that :

¶26

[i] the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required by the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case;

¶27

Page No. 4/4

¶28

[ii] the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶29

[iii] the petitioners shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

¶30

[iv] the petitioners shall maintain law and order and they shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or of the commission of which they are suspected; and

¶31

[v] the petitioners shall regularly remain present during the trial and co-operate the Court to complete the trial for the above offences, if charge sheeted in the case;

¶32

The bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Lila Dhar and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lila Dhar and Anr. 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

Johura Khanam Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

Tomser Ali and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Sabitri Boro Vs the State of Assam

Kiran Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Madhupriya Dasgupta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Priyam Das Vs the State of Assam