Harjinder Singh vs. The State Of West Bengal
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Harjinder Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Mejia PS Case No. 55 of 2024, registered under Sections 409/420/120B of the Penal Code. The case involves allegations of substantial sums not being paid by Aadinath Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Aadinath Steel. The petitioner, employed as an Area Sales Manager since January 2024, allegedly worked under a co-accused, Siddharth Purohit, who had already been granted anticipatory bail. The core of the dispute revolves around the petitioner's alleged ownership of "Devbhoomi Steel Traders," to whom goods were supplied on Aadinath's instructions and allegedly not paid for. The complainant company continued the petitioner's employment until October 17, 2024, despite the FIR being registered on May 2, 2024.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that a substantially similarly circumstanced co-accused, Siddharth Purohit, under whom the petitioner worked, had been granted anticipatory bail by a Division Bench of the Court. While acknowledging that the petitioner did not disclose his ownership of "Devbhoomi Steel Traders," the Court characterized this as, at best, a conflict of interest. The Court noted the de facto complainant's stand that "M/s Aadinath Steel" would remain liable for transactions where goods were directed to "Devbhoomi Steel Traders." Considering the materials in the case diary, the petitioner's ascribed role, and the prior grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused, the Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including furnishing a bond, cooperating with the investigation, and meeting the Investigating Officer fortnightly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita, considering his role and the circumstances of the case? The petitioner argued that he was subordinate to a co-accused, Siddharth Purohit, who had already been granted anticipatory bail by a Division Bench of this Court. He contended that he stands on a better footing and that his continued employment by the complainant company until October 17, 2024, despite the FIR, indicates a lack of serious allegations. The petitioner acknowledged a possible conflict of interest due to his alleged ownership of "Devbhoomi Steel Traders" but argued that this was at best a conflict of interest. The de facto complainant argued that the petitioner was on a different footing because he did not disclose his proprietorship of "Devbhoomi Steel Traders" to the company, despite authorizing transactions where goods were supplied to this concern. The State opposed the bail, relying on the case diary and noting that GST documents were in the name of the petitioner's concern.
Sections Cited
Section 482, Section 438(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Court No.28 Item No.14 ssi CRM (A) 1775 of 2025
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Mejia PS Case No.55 of 2024 dated 02.05.2024 under Sections 409/420/120B of the Penal Code.
And In the matter of: Harjinder Singh. ….Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Aditya Tiwari
…for the petitioner
Ms. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. APP
..for the State
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dipanjan Dutt
..for the de facto
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The other co-accused in this case was the overall in-charge of sales of the de facto complainant company and the petitioner was only working under him since January 2024. The case was started on the ground that substantial sums due were not paid by the company Aadinath Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Aadinath Steel. The other co- accused namely, Siddharth Purohit was granted anticipatory bail by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.08.2024 in CRM (A) 2951 of 2024. The petitioner stands on a better footing. In fact, although the FIR was registered on 02.05.2024, the complainant company continued with the petitioner’s employment till 17.10.2024. The only allegation which comes out is a possible conflict of interest as the petitioner was allegedly found to be the owner of one “Devbhoomi Steel Traders” to
2 whom, upon instruction from the Aadinath, goods were supplied and allegedly not paid for.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant company submits as follows. The present petitioner stands on a different footing because he did not disclose to the company that he was the proprietor of the concern where some goods were supplied. The petitioner being the Area Sales Manager had authorized such transaction.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, relies on the case diary and submits as follows. The GST documents are in the name of the concern, which belongs to the present petitioner. A Director of the accused Aadinath was in custody for some time and was granted bail.
It appears that the Division Bench of this Court after hearing all the parties including the de facto complainant had granted anticipatory bail to the other co-accused Siddharth Purohit under whom the petitioner was working. The said co-accused had been working in the concerned since 2023. It is true that the petitioner did not disclose that he was the owner of the said other concerned “Devbhoomi Steel Traders”. However, this can at best be termed as a conflict of interest. But, it has been the categorical stand of the de facto complainant company, as in the FIR as well as in the subsequent statement, that “M/s Aadinath Steel” often informed them to supply its ordered quantity to one “Devbhoomi Steel Traders”. Therefore, even for those transaction, the said Aadinath Steel would remain liable.
3
Considering the materials available in the case diary, the roles ascribed to the present petitioner and the fact that a substantially similarly circumstance co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail earlier, 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 conditions that the petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses and shall co- operate with investigation. The petitioner shall meet the I.O. once a fortnight till submission of report in final form.
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
(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.