Souma Singha vs State Of Tripura

[1] This bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C. for short) for granting pre arrest bail to the petitioner who is one of the 3 FIR named accused in West Agartala P.S. case No.2019 WAG 005 registered under Sections 419 and 420 IPC.

[2] Brief facts of the case is as under:

Anijit Saha, stated to be the proprietor of XED Motorcycles, Natunnagar, Agartala, lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-charge of West Agartala police station on 09/01/2019 alleging that the petitioner along with the said Sanjib Chakraborty and Sanjay Goswami cheated him of a sum of Rs.18,30,500/-. According to the informant, over cell phone and introduced themselves as employees of the Airport Authority of India who proposed to the informant to transfer money to their account if he was interested in procuring a tender for vehicle procurement of vehicles for Agartala and Imphal airports.

[3] During such call, the present petitioner introduced himself as Chief Accountant of Airports Authority of India. With a view to procure the tender, the informant transferred the said sum of money to the account of the petitioner through SBI and HDFC banks. Subsequently, he realised that the petitioner had played fraud on him and cheated him of the said amount of money. Based on his FIR said West Agartala P.S. Case No.2019 WAG 005 was registered and investigation of the case was taken up by the police.

[4] Apprehending arrest in the case, the petitioner has approached this court for pre arrest bail by means of filing the present petition.

[5] Appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Rumela Guha, learned advocate submits that the entire case is a falsehood and the accused petitioner has no connection with the case. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner never made any call to the informant demanding any sum of money. According to learned counsel, the informant should also be held liable for entering into such transaction knowing it fully well that such a transaction is forbidden by law. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the alleged transaction is purely a commercial transaction and all records of the transaction are maintained by the said banks for which no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner does not know who cheated the informant by using his name.

[6] It is contended by Ms.Guha, learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner has came to know that his various bank accounts are being targetted by miscreants for illegal purposes and the petitioner is getting ready for taking appropriate action against those miscreants. It is also contended by learned counsel that petitioner is a patient of chronic diabetes and his family consisting of minor children will be in trouble if he is arrested and detained. Learned counsel submits that since the prosecution case rests on documentary evidence and the bank will be able to provide such documents, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not at all necessary and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

[7] Mr.R.Datta, learned PP vehemently opposes the bail application. Learned PP has produced the voluminous case diary and refered to the various documents collected by the investigating agency which shows that the petitioner has been involved in several severe offences of same kind. Learned counsel referred to various cheques by which the petitioner had drawn huge sum of money from his accounts maintained in various banks after cheating the informant and various other people. The CD reveals that several cases have been registered against him.

[8] Referring to forensic report available in the CD, learned PP submits that the forensic report has confirmed that the signatures of the petitioner appearing on the said cheques were proved genuine. Therefore, his contention that somebody is accessing to his bank accounts is not true.

[9] It is true that the informant of this case entered into a completely illegal transaction. But this cannot help the petitioner.

[10] In view of the materials available on record, supporting prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the seriousness of the offence, necessity of his custodial interrogation, his antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is not a resident within the jurisdiction of the trial court, it would not be appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to him at this stage. Therefore, his bail application stands rejected and the case is disposed of accordingly.

Return the CD.