Prima facie evidence is crucial in seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - Petitioner has applied for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 187 of 2022 by the order No. 2 dated May 20, 2022 in favour of the opposite party No. 2.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the opposite party no. 2 was the statutory auditor of the petitioner. As the statutory auditor of the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 had been responsible for the preparation of the balance sheet and accounts of the petitioner. The opposite party No. 2 had shown a sum of Rs. 1.66 crores to be deposited as fixed deposits with HDFC Bank in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had subsequently discovered that, such fixed deposits were fake. The opposite party No. 2 had taken the money in collusion and conspiracy with his brother. Consequently, the petitioner had lodged the First Information Report with the police.

3. Learned advocate appearing for petitioner has submitted that, the First Information Report cannot be considered as the encyclopedia of all the events. He has referred to the bank accounts of the petitioner and submitted that, the brother of the opposite party No. 2 had benefited out of the money belonging to the petitioner. He has referred to various entries in the bank account of the petitioner whereby, according to him, it can be established that, the brother of the opposite party No. 2 had received diverse amounts on different dates from the bank account of the petitioner. The brother of the opposite party No. 2 was not entitled to such amounts and that he had received the amounts wrongfully and illegally.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that such affidavit has not been affirmed by the opposite party No. 2 himself. He has submitted that the opposite party No. 2 has not affirmed such affidavit himself and that the opposite party No. 2 has adopted such course of action deliberately, so that, in the event, the Court finds that the opposite party No. 2 had misled this Hon'ble Court, then the petitioner would not be in a position to file a complaint with the Institute of Chartered Accountants since, the affidavit has not been affirmed by him.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon 2022 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 465 (Jaibunisha vs. Meherban and Another), 2022 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 609 (Ishwarji Nagaji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and Another), 2021 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 729 (Rekha Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), 2001 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 338 (Puran vs. Rambilas and Another) in support of his contention that bail cannot be granted arbitrarily. He has contended that filing of a charge sheet is not a sufficient ground to reject a prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail. He has contended that, the Learned Judge while granting the impugned order of anticipatory bail, did not consider the relevant materials. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submitted that, the Learned Judge had proceeded on an erroneous basis which is ex facie apparent from the face of the records. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the police had filed charge sheet against the opposite party No. 2 invoking a provision of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which speaks of a heinous Crime. Therefore, according to him, the order granting anticipatory bail in favour of the opposite party No. 2 should be cancelled.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the materials in the case diary. He has contended that, the petitioner was asked by the investigating authority as to the details of the amounts and the accounts from where the money was allegedly defalcated by the brother of the opposite party No. 2. He has contended that the police