Debashis Dey vs State Of Tripura

S. G. Chattopadhyay, J

[1] Apprehending arrest in Melaghar P.S. case No.2021 MLG 047 registered for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC, applicant, Debashis Dey has filed this application under Section 438 Cr. P.C for granting pre-arrest bail to him.

[2] The factual background of this case is as under:

Smt. Arpita Saha of Agartala lodged a written FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Melaghar Police Station on 18.08.2021 against the applicant. She stated in her FIR that she was the proprietor of Sai Baba Traders which has an office at Indranagar, Agartala. Her company deals with purchase and sale of rubber sheets. Though she is the proprietor of the company, her business is actually run by her husband Pritam Pal. She alleged that she had a business transaction with the M/s. G. D. Enterprise of Melaghar which used to supply rubber sheets to her company and after purchasing rubber sheets from M/s. G. D. Enterprise her company used to supply such rubber sheets to its consignees. She was having such business transaction with M/s. G. D. Enterprise, Melaghar for the last one year. The proprietor of M/s. G. D. Enterprise is Goutam Debbarma. But actually the accused applicant Debashis Dey alias Rana operates the business of M/s. G. D. Enterprise on behalf of Goutam Debbarma. Complainant, Smt. Arpita Saha further alleged that on 10.08.2021 three companies namely, Hindustan Rubtex, Purbanchal Suppliers and Mahanam Rubber Industries together placed an order to her company for supplying 48,500 kg rubber sheets to them. As per the contract between complainant's company and said M/s. G. D. Enterprise, three vehicles were loaded with rubber sheets by M/s. G. D. Enterprise for supplying the said goods to the consignees from whom petitioner's company received the order. Applicant, Debashis Dey sent the e-Way bill to petitioner's husband Pritam Pal which indicated that 13,000 kg rubber sheets were loaded in vehicle bearing registration No. Tr-01A-1746, 24,000 kg. rubber sheets were loaded in vehicle bearing registration No.NL-01-AB 8768 and 11,500 kg rubber sheets was loaded NL-01-AD-7257. Complainant's company also received advance from its consignees and after receiving such advance complainant's husband Pritam Pal made a payment of Rs.82,99,672/- to the bank account of M/s. G. D. Enterprise vide Account No.10190000793339, IFSC-BDBL0001263 in Bandhan Bank, Melaghar branch. Accused applicant, Debashis Dey also confirmed the complainant about the receipt of such payment. It was further alleged in the complaint that before the vehicles started from Melaghar with the said consignment for delivery to the consignees, one of the drivers of those vehicles called complainant's husband over telephone and informed him that the actual owner of the rubber sheets from whom M/s. G. D. Enterprise purchased the same refused to release the vehicles with the consignment because M/s. G. D. Enterprise did not make payment of the price of those rubber sheets to its actual owner. Husband of the complainant immediately contacted the accused applicant who assured him that he would make the payment to the owners of the rubber sheets and the loaded vehicles would be released very soon. Thereafter neither the proprietor of M/s. G. D. Enterprise nor accused applicant Debashis Dey had taken any step for supplying the rubber sheets to the complainant's consignees. Complainant's husband demanded refund of his money from the accused. Accused applicant Debashis Dey had also taken him to Bandhan Bank at Melaghar branch for refunding the money from where the accused applicant fled. Subsequently, he did not even receive any telephone of the complainant's husband. The complainant then approached the police station and filed the present complaint. On the basis of her complaint, Melaghar P.S case No. 2021 MLG 047 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

[3] Section 406 IPC is a non bailable offence which provides punishment for criminal breach of trust. Punishment of which is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. Section 420 IPC is also a non bailable offence which provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Punishment of which is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years with fine. Section 120B IPC provides punishment for criminal conspiracy to commit an offence which is as under:

"120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]"

[4] Heard Mr. A. Basak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

[5] The bone of contention of Mr. Basak, learned counsel of the petitioner is that the case is arising out of a contract between the parties and if the complainant have any grievance with regard to the performance of such contract she should approach a civil Court claiming appropriate relief available under the law. Mr. Basak submits that it is no case where the personal liberty of a person can be jeopardized by his arrest and detention in custody. Counsel submits that the petitioner has refunded a part of the money allegedly received by him from the complainant. It is also submitted by Mr. Basak that the accused is a business partner of the complainant for the last one year and the complainant also trusted him and continued her business with him. Counsel submits that suddenly the complainant approached the police station and lodged a criminal case against him for no fault of the accused. Counsel therefore, urges the Court to protect the accused from arrest and detention by granting anticipatory bail to him.

[6] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits a statement of the bank account of the M/s. G. D. Enterprise and contends that the said statement would show that the alleged sum of money was actually paid by the complainant's company to M/s. G. D. Enterprise. But no consignment was delivered to the consignee of the complainant in terms of the contract. Counsel also submits that even though M/s. G. D. Enterprise is registered in the name of accused Gautam Debbarma, accused applicant is actually operating the business of M/s. G. D. Enterprise from behind the screen and doing many illegal activities. Counsel submits that the fraud involves a huge sum of money and the investigating agency should be given the chance to conduct a full and fair investigation without any interruption for which arrest and detention of the accused is necessary. Counsel therefore, urges the Court to reject his bail application.

[7] Perused the entire record. Considered the submissions made at the Bar. Complainant is a woman entrepreneur who on good faith made the payment of a huge sum of money to M/s. G. D. Enterprise, business of which is operated by the accused applicant. Allegedly, the accused did not deliver the goods to the consignee of the complainant despite receiving the money. When the complainant demanded refund of her money, accused had taken her husband to Bandhan Bank in its branch at Melaghar from where he fled. Going by the allegations in the FIR and the materials placed on behalf of the prosecution in support of these allegations, a clear case of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC is made out against the accused. In view of the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, submissions of the counsel of the petitioner that dispute between the parties is of civil nature which can be resolved by a civil Court cannot be accepted. Under what prerogative accused applicant Debashis Dey is operating the business of M/s. G. D. Enterprise and collecting money on behalf of M/s. G. D. Enterprise is required to be ascertained by the investigating agency. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency must also collect information with regard to his antecedents. In view of the fact that a prima facie case of cheating and criminal breach of trust has been made out against the accused petitioner and the fact that the amount involved in the case is a huge amount of money and considering the role of the accused in the commission of the alleged offence, this Court is of the view that a full and fair investigation of the case is necessary and release of the accused on pre-arrest bail is likely to obstruct the course of investigation because likelihood of his influencing the witnesses and manipulating evidence cannot also be ruled out.

[8] For the reasons stated above, his bail application stands rejected and the matter is disposed of. Return the Case Diary.