Both the bail applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are taken up together for hearing and disposal since those are filed by different accused-petitioners in connection with same police case under investigation i.e. Ranir Bazar P.S. Case No. 14 of 2013 registered under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 148 of 2013 has been preferred by accused-petitioner Sri Sushanta Singha and Anticipatory Bail Application No. 165 of 2013 has been preferred by the accused-petitioner Sri Babul Debnath. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas for the petitioner of A.B. No. 148 of 2013 and learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik for A.B. No. 165 of 2013. Also heard learned special counsel of CBI, Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent. Case diary is produced by the learned special counsel of CBI and perused the case diary. A similar bail application of accused-petitioner Sushanta Singha, A.B. No. 53 of 2013 was rejected by this Court by order dated 10.05.2013. Similarly, such an application filed by Babul Debnath i.e. A.B. No. 112 of 2013 was also rejected by this Court on 21.08.2013. The allegation made in the FIR, in short, is that a company in the name and style of "Self Trust Enterprises Ltd." set up its NET of collecting cash deposits from the public at large in the State assuring high return and thereby, collected Crores of rupees but, in fine, closed their office in the State and thereby, cheated hundreds of depositors and taken away Crores of rupees deposited by the public. The accused-petitioner Babul Debnath was working as a Regional Manager of the Company and Susanta Singha as a Finance Director of the Company in respect of Tripura region. It is also alleged that both the accused-petitioners were involved in the activity of collection of deposits for the Company. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik and Mr. Biswas strenuously argued that the accusedpetitioners were not involved in the collection of deposits. No case has been registered as yet under "The Tripura Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2000 and the case has been registered simply under Section 406 and 420 of IPC for which, the Company only can be blamed and the accused-petitioner cannot be held responsible for cheating or misappropriation of fund. It is also contended by learned senior counsel of both the petitioners that the FIR was lodged on 27.04.2013 and investigation is presumed to have completed in the mean time and whatever may be the documents relating to alleged transactions those might be in the custody of the Company and the petitioners cannot have any access to any such document and hence, their custodial detention is not at all required by the police and under such circumstances, they may be released on bail. It is also contended by learned counsel of both the petitioners that accused-petitioners were poor paid employees and the designation given by the company was meaningless having no such work entrusted on them and both of them resigned from the Company and so, they are not at all connected in any mischievous act of the Company, if any, in course of collection of any deposit. It is also contended that the accused-petitioners also deposited their hard earned money and cheated by the Company and their detention further in custody will be an additional insult to them. Learned special counsel of CBI, Mr. Debnath has submitted that the investigation has been taken up by CBI recently and the materials on record clearly shows that the accused-persons and other Directors of the Company not only committed offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC, but also committed offence under the Special Act i.e. "The Tripura Protection of Interest Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2000. It is further submitted by Mr. Debnath that the accused-petitioners were actively engaged in the management of the Company and for their active involvement, the activity of the Company flourished in the State and thereby, huge cash deposits were collected from public at large and thereafter, the Company vanished and the people are cheated. Custodial interrogations of the accused-petitioners are absolutely necessary and their release of pre-arrest bail will affect the investigation. It is also contended by Mr. Debnath that in cases of economic offences like that of the present one, the Court should not deal with the accused-persons leniently and he referred the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI reported in (2013) CRI. L.J. 2734. I have meticulously gone through the case diary. Similar bail application of both the accused-petitioners were rejected by this Court on earlier occasion considering the merit of the case and materials collected during investigation. I find no new material at all to reconsider the case and to grant pre-arrest bail to the accusedpetitioners. The accused-petitioners were in the management of the Company, may be for a short period, but were indulged in the activity of the Company and collection of cash deposits from the public assuring abnormal high benefits on such deposits, but allegedly, the Company has vanished and the people are cheated. Under such circumstances of the case, I find no reason at all to take a lenient view in respect of bail prayer of the accused-petitioners. Hence, bail prayer of both the accused-petitioners stands rejected. Case diaries are returned to learned special counsel of CBI.
