Pre-arrest bail may be rejected where petitioners fail to provide documentary evidence to support claims of legitimate investment after procuring funds through deceitful assurances of guaranteed returns.

BEFORE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

ORDER

29.09.2021

Both the petitions are taken up together as they are related to the same PS Case.

By way of these applications filed under Section 438 CrPC, the petitioners, namely, Hriday Pratim Haloi and Binod Kumar Das, have sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Fatasil Ambari PS Case No. 315/2020, under Sections 120(B)/420/406/ 403/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

Also perused the record and the Case Diary.

The husband of the informant herein, took a loan of Rs. 28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs) only from Capital First Bank, for the purpose of constructing a house, on 13.01.2018. At that juncture, the two accused petitioners, by introducing themselves as the employees of the above Capital First Bank, lured Khagen Dutta (informant’s husband), and his wife to invest the money in the share market, on the assurance that the said invested amount will be doubled in one year period and on being convinced with such assurance by the petitioners, the said Khagen Dutta and his wife withdrew an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- from their Bank and gave it to the accused petitioners. Although they returned certain amount of Rs. 5 lacs in different installments as a share of profit to the husband of the informant, but no any amount was returned to them as share, despite the elapse of one year. Now, they have been threatening the informant and her husband, whenever they have asked for the money. Accordingly, the FIR was filed on 21.08.2020, i.e., after two years of such payment, alleging that they have misappropriated the money of the informant and her husband.

The fact that the informant and her husband paid the said amount of Rs. 28 lacs to the two accused petitioners, is supported by the witnesses so far examined. On the other hand, the petitioners have admitted about receipt of the aforesaid amount, but it is contended that the amount has been invested in the share market and due to having no profit, the amount could not be returned. The petitioners were given interim bail with a view to enable them to produce their relevant documents before the IO, but except some averments, the petitioners totally failed to produce any documents to prove that they are the employees under the said Capital First Bank and they have invested the money and that the company has incurred the loss etc.

The notable aspect of the case is that the petitioners have procured the amount by deceitful means that the amount will be doubled in a year, which is nothing but a false pretext. They miserably failed to produce any piece of document in support of their plea and the hard-earned money of the informant was exploited by such deceitful means.

Considering all entirety of the matter, their prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected.

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Petition stands disposed of.

Return the Case Diary.