Avishek Dey vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, Avishek Dey, in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 241/2022. The Court found that the petitioner's position as Sales Executive, even after resignation, prima facie indicated he could have had access to the employer's stocks. The allegations of misappropriation of goods worth Rs. 58,23,890/- (including GST) were serious. The Court was of the opinion that the case was not fit for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. The application was disposed of, and the case diary was returned.

Facts

The petitioner, Avishek Dey, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 241/2022, registered under Sections 120B/381/409/408 IPC. The FIR alleged misappropriation of goods worth Rs. 58,23,890/- (including GST) from the informant's company. The petitioner, previously employed as a Sales Engineer and later Sales Executive, claimed he resigned on 18.06.2022, effective 20.06.2022, and was not entrusted with any goods or their custody. He argued he was falsely implicated after resignation. A previous pre-arrest bail application was rejected. The Investigating Officer opined the petitioner might be involved in the misappropriation, and the Court noted his position could have provided access to company stocks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 241/2022, considering the allegations of misappropriation of goods worth Rs. 58,23,890/- (including GST)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was not in service on the date of the FIR and had resigned prior to any accusations. He argued that as a Service Engineer, he was never entrusted with goods or their custody, and therefore, could not have misappropriated them. He also pointed out that another accused had been released on regular bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the Addl. P.P., implicitly argued against pre-arrest bail by presenting the FIR allegations and the Investigating Officer's opinion that the petitioner might be involved. The Court's observation that the petitioner's role could have provided access to stocks also supports the State's position.