In Re: Lalita Saraogi

The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code read with

Section 3 of the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013. Pursuant to the earlier direction, Investigating

Officer is personally present before this court. His presence is noted and dispensed with. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is in

custody for about a year and that she was one of the erstwhile directors of ASK Financial Services Ltd. Which came to be transferred to the hands of

the principal accused namely, Monoranjan Roy and his associates. Pursuant to transfer of the company, she resigned from the directorship of the said

company on 3rd October, 2012 and since then did not play any role in the affairs of the said company. All collections from the depositors were made

on or after 3rd October, 2012 and under such circumstances, she cannot be said to be responsible for dishonestly inducing depositors to make deposits

in the said company.

On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Maity, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the

petitioner was one of the conspirators and the transfer of the ownership of the company in favour of the principal accused namely, Monoranjan Roy

on 3rd October, 2012 was a sham transaction. In fact, resignation of the petitioner from the affairs of the company was belatedly submitted with the

Registrar of Companies on 26th April, 2013 and in the meantime a sum of about Rs.7 crores had been invited from innocent depositors which was

subsequently misappropriated. He further submits that the severance of the relationship of the petitioner cannot be said to be prior to inviting of

deposits from the market. He also submits that charge has already been framed and the matter is fixed for recording of evidence on the next date.

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The allegations in the instant case are serious. They relate to fraudulent inviting of deposits

from unsuspecting members of the public by the accused persons who were running chit fund business and misappropriating such monies running to

hundreds of crores. The principal accused namely, Monoranjan Roy and his family ran the Pincon Group of Companies and are the prime architects of

such corporate fraud entailing loss to innumerable individuals. Role of the petitioner, it has been argued, is restricted to the affairs of M/s. ASK

Financial Services Ltd. and that too till 3rd October, 2012 when she retired from the directorship of the company. It has also been argued that the

belated communication to the Registrar of Companies i.e. on 26th April, 2013 cannot be attributable to the petitioner as there was transfer of

ownership of the company in favour of Pincon Group of Companies over which the petitioner had no control.

It is trite law that the resignation of a Director of the company takes place from the date on which it is submitted with the company. However, in a

case involving conspiracy amongst the directors of a company who were indulging in corporate fraud, one must also examine the attending facts and

circumstances of the case to ensure as to whether such resignation from the directorship of the company is a smokescreen one to evade culpability or

not.

We have, therefore, examined the facts of the case from that perspective. From the materials collected in the course of investigation we do not find

any relation between the petitioner and the Pincon Group of Companies who happened to acquire ASK Financial Services Ltd. in or about October,

2012. Pursuant to such transfer of ownership, the petitioner appears to have resigned from the directorship of the company. Inspite of repeated

queries, learned advocate appearing for the State could not place before us any role of the petitioner in the affairs of the aforesaid company or any

other company owned by Pincon Group or interaction with depositors since her resignation. Admittedly, no deposits had been invited and made to the

company prior to her resignation on 3rd October, 2012. It is also important to note that upon the transfer of ownership the management of the

aforesaid company shifted into the hands of Pincon Group. There are no materials on record to show that petitioner played any role in the affairs of

the said company thereafter or received any benefits therefrom. Hence, we are of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner did not have control over

its affairs since her resignation and could not have ensured prompt submission of her resignation with the Registrar of Companies.

In the light of the aforesaid facts particularly the absence of independent materials with regard to the role of the petitioner in the affairs of the

company from the date of her resignation or the belated submission of such resignation with the Registrar of Companies, we are of the opinion that the

accused/petitioner may be granted bail.

Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely Lalita Saraogi, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only), with two

sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk

subject to condition that the said petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate

witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that she shall not leave the State of West Bengal without the

leave of the trial court until further orders.

In the event she fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel her bail automatically without

reference to this court. The application for bail, thus, stands allowed. Observations made by us are for the purpose of disposal of the application and

shall not have any bearing at the subsequent stage of trial which needless to mention shall be decided on the basis of evidence adduced.