In The Matter Of Sujit Kumar Munshi vs State

The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

The appropriate District is Nadia and not North 24 Paragans as erroneously indicated in the petition.

The petitioner says that a small amount of foodgrains meant for public distribution system was allegedly found to have been diverted by the petitioner.

The State says that the evidence is clinching. According to the State during the difficult lockdown period, foodgrains meant for the public distribution system were sold elsewhere for undisclosed profits. The State refers to the recorded telephone conversation between the petitioner and another person bringing out the nature of the transactions.

However, the petitioner need not be detained in custody as long as the petitioner cooperates with the investigation and reports to the investigating officer as and when called. An additional condition is imposed for the petitioner to enjoy bail. The petitioner is required to make a fixed deposit with a nationalised Bank for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty Thousand only) which will be free from encumbrances and lien and which the petitioner cannot touch till the trial is concluded or the investigation exonerates the petitioner.

Subject to such fixed deposit being opened by the petitioner with a nationalised Bank and a copy of the fixed deposit receipt being made over to the investigating officer, the petitioner will be entitled to obtain bail on furnishing security of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) together with personal release bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only)to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The petitioner will also comply with the provisions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

CRM 3937 of 2020 and CRAN 2167 of 2020 are disposed of.