The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the role of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or threatening the complainant.

JUDGMENT

1. These two anticipatory bail applications are being disposed of by a common judgment since they both arise out of the same FIR and the factual situation is virtually identical.

2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that one Sri Arnab Chakraborty who was working as cashier of the Rashtriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhijan (RMSA) has embezzled huge amounts of money running into crores of rupees after having entered into a criminal conspiracy and having been aided and abetted by various persons including the present two petitioners. According to the prosecution, as per the evidence collected till now Arnab Chakraborty has embezzled an amount of Rs. 3.74 crores by forging 96 cheques. Charge-sheet in the case has been submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. Initially, charge-sheet was only submitted against Arnab Chakraborty, his wife Smt. Sanghita Chakraborty and his mother Smt. Kajal Rani Chakraborty. However, thereafter charge-sheet has been prepared even in regard to the two petitioners Binoy Das and Rajib Dasgupta.

3. The allegation against Binoy Das is that he gave shelter to the accused Arnab Chakraborty as well as to Rajib Dasgupta during the period from 05-09-2014 onwards when Arnab was absconding after the filing/registration of the FIR along with Rajib Dasgupta. It is alleged that Binoy Das helped Arnab Chakraborty to escape from Agartala by road via Silchar to Kolkata in a hired Scorpio. It is also alleged that he along with Arnab Chakraborty and Rajib Dasgupta went to Ayush Jewellers, Kolkata and purchased gold ornament worth Rs. 2,98,500/- using debit card of Arnab Chakraborty but Rajib Dasguputa signed the name of Arnab Chakraborty. The prosecution relies upon some CCTv recordings etc. in this regard.

4. With regard to Rajib Dasgupta, the allegations are much more serious. It is alleged that in addition to the above, Arnab and Rajib are close friends and just prior to the recording of the FIR on 03-07-2014 they travelled together to Kolkata by air. It is alleged that both of them, i.e. Arnab and Rajib bought two Enfield Motor Cycles from the same showroom on the same date, i.e. 07-07-2014 and the cost of each motorcycle was Rs. 1.5 lakhs. It is also alleged that immediately after the registration of the FIR, Rajib Dasgupta left Agartala on 06-09-2014 along with family members of Arnab Chakraborty. They went to Kolkata where they resided in a luxury hotel. The allegation against Rajib Dasgupta is also that he impersonated himself as Debabrata Pal and signed 10 forged cheques of RMSA and misappropriated Rs. 33,54,000/- from government funds. According to the police, Rajib Dasgupta and Arnab Chakraborty used to go to Tripura State Co-operative Bank together to withdraw huge amounts of money and, therefore, test identification of Rajib Dasgupta has to be got done from the bank officials. Other material relied upon by the prosecution is the fact that both Rajib Dasgupta and Arnab Chakraborty opened bank accounts on the same day in United Bank of India, Barjala where the misappropriated money was deposited. Huge transactions have been shown in the various bank accounts of Rajib Dasgupta.

5. Sri P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Rajib Dasgupta, has relied upon the additional affidavit filed by Rajib Dasgupta wherein there are details of transactions of lakhs of rupees in the earlier years also and it is submitted that these transactions are natural transactions in the nature of his business. It is also alleged that Rajib Dasgupta used to act as an intermediary to get settlements made with the bank and, therefore, the loanees had given the amount to him which was to be deposited in the bank.

6. This Court cannot understand why the bank should have intermediaries to come to a one time settlement with the debtors. Furthermore, why would the debtor give the money to the intermediary if the same has to be actually deposited in bank