Avishek Dey vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the FIR, which alleged the missing of stocks worth Rs. 58,23,890/- (including GST) from the informant's office, and the petitioner's potential involvement along with other staff. The Court also noted the I.O.'s opinion from the case diary that the petitioner might be involved in the misappropriation of goods from his erstwhile employer. While acknowledging the petitioner's submission regarding his resignation and the bail granted to a co-accused, the Court found that granting pre-arrest bail at this stage would not be appropriate to enable the I.O. to unearth the truth. Therefore, the application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Avishek Dey, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. case no. 241/2022, registered under Sections 120B/381/409/408 IPC. The FIR alleged that stocks worth Rs. 58,23,890/- (including GST) were missing from the informant's office, and the petitioner, along with other staff, might be involved. The petitioner claimed he resigned from the informant's office via email dated 18.06.2022, effective 20.06.2022, and was falsely implicated in the FIR dated 20.08.2022. He also pointed out that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) opined that the petitioner might be involved in the misappropriation of goods from his former employer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 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) and the petitioner's alleged involvement. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was not connected with the alleged offense. He submitted documentary evidence showing his resignation from the informant's office prior to the FIR date and argued that he was falsely implicated. He further relied on the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail by this Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the prayer for bail, producing the case diary. The I.O.'s opinion, as recorded in the case diary, suggested the petitioner's potential involvement in the misappropriation of goods.