Partha Sarathy Chatterjee vs State Of Bengal

Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the Senior General Manager - Supply Chain & Logistics of

the company and there was dispute between him and the superior management of the company. Hence, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

the instant case.

It is further submitted that instead of implicating the vendors for raising inflated bills relating to supply of green tea leaves by the company, the

petitioner has been falsely implicated for such activity. It is also submitted that the role of the petitioner in clearing of such bills is an intermidiate one

and no payments are made, save and except countersigning of such bills by the de facto complainant himself.

It is also pointed out that the de facto complainant acted in a fraudulent manner in lodging first information report after suppressing an earlier order

passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to direct an application under section 156(c) Cr.P.C. on the self-same facts for investigation.

Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the conduct of the petitioner clearly depicts dishonest intention

as he had engineered raising of inflated bills in order to misappropriate funds of the company and cause wrongful loss to it. He also submits that order

passed by the learned Magistrate suffers from nonapplication of mind as ingredients of the alleged offence are clearly made out falsely and the factual

matrix of both the complaints are not identical.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that notice under section 41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued upon the petitioner

and he has responded to the same. He, however, submits that there is sufficient material against the petitioner in the instant case. We have given our

anxious considerations to the rival submissions of the parties.

It appears that the grievance against the petitioner is one of negligent passing of inflated bills raised by various vendors. It is strange that none of the

vendors have been arrayed as accused persons in the first information report wherein the petitioner is the sole accused. That apart, some of the bills

appear to have been countersigned by the de facto complainant himself.

It is also important to note that there is suppression in the first information report as to the rejection of an earlier application under section 156(3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure on similar facts by the learned Magistrate. It is also relevant that the alleged inflated bills have already been seized and/or

are in custody of the investigating agency. The petitioner has duly co-operated with the investigating agency and has responded to notice issued upon

him under section 41(A) Cr.P.C.

In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, we are of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for progress of

investigation and his denial of liberty in the event of arrest in this case would only amount to pre-trial detention. Hence, we are inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like

amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner shall not leave the State of West Bengal without the permission of the Court below until

further orders and shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further order. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.