Asish Kumar Das vs. State Of West Bengal
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Asish Kumar Das, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case involving alleged fraud. The case stems from an agreement where the de facto complainant allegedly provided her property as collateral for a GST overdraft account opened by the petitioner's concern. The agreement stipulated an initial payment of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash, five cheques for Rs. 10 lakhs each, and a monthly payment of Rs. 1.75 lakhs for two years. It is alleged that the monthly payments ceased after one year. The State contended that the complainant was later brought in as a partner, a partnership reconstitution occurred, and the petitioner allegedly took Rs. 40 lakhs from a total overdraft of Rs. 1 crore, even after exiting the firm, by using previously provided User ID and Password.
Held
The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that it did not appear that the liability to repay the overdraft had been placed on the de facto complainant. The Court also expressed surprise that the de facto complainant, despite entering into the partnership, had not decided to access the User ID and Password. Considering these aspects and other materials in the case diary, the Court was of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not required. Consequently, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Further conditions included cooperation with the investigation, meeting the Investigating Officer once a week until the submission of the final report, and not threatening or intimidating witnesses, as per Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer was dispensed with.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in connection with Sankrail P.S. FIR Case No. 534 of 2025, dated 20.06.2025, under Sections 468, 469, 471, 420, 120B, and 34 of the IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that there was an agreement involving collateral security for a GST overdraft account, with specific payment terms. The petitioner's concern was that the de facto complainant was in dire need of money, and the agreement outlined payments and monthly installments. State's arguments: The State, relying on the case diary and report, opposed the anticipatory bail. They contended that the complainant was brought in as a partner, a reconstitution of the partnership occurred, and the petitioner allegedly withdrew Rs. 40 lakhs from a Rs. 1 crore overdraft, even after leaving the partnership, by misusing credentials.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 482, Section 468, Section 469, Section 471, Section 420, Section 120B, Section 34
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 Court No.28 Item No. 5 tbsr Allowed CRM (A) 4146 of 2025
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sankrail P.S. FIR Case No.534 of 2025 dated 20.06.2025 under Section 468/469/471/420/120B/34 of the IPC. And In the matter of: Asish Kumar Das
….Petitioner.
Mr. J. N. Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. S. Bhutoria Ms. D. P. Mitra
….for the petitioner
Mr. Ranadev Sengupta
Mr. Karan Bapuli
….for the State
Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. There was an agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the de facto complainant as the de facto complainant was in dire need of money that she will give her property as collateral security for a GST over draft account to be opened by the petitioner’s concern. It was agreed Rs. 10 lakhs would be paid to the de facto complainant in cash and five cheques for Rs. 10 lakhs would be given. Additionally a sum of Rs. 1.75 lakhs would be paid per month for two years. It is alleged that the monthly payment of Rs. 1.75 lakhs was done only for one year and it was stopped after that.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and the report and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
2 He submits that subsequently instead of the petitioner the complainant was brought in as one of the partners of the concern. There was a reconstitution of the partnership. A total sum of Rs. 1 crore was taken as over draft and it was agreed that Rs. 40 lakhs was to be taken by the petitioner. In spite of walking out of the partnership firm, the petitioner has taken out money from the said account by using User ID and Password given earlier.
It does not appear that the liability to repay has been put on the de facto complainant.
It is surprising that the de facto complainant in spite of entering into the partnership has not decided to access the Password and User ID.
Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
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 each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and on further condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with investigation, meet the I.O. once a week till submission of report in final form and shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses.
3
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.
The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer is noted and is dispensed.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.