MANU/WB/1468/2014

Equivalent Citation: 2016(2) C HN (C AL) 685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

C.R.M. No. 13082 of 2014
Decided On: 20.11.2014
Appellants: In Re: Akshay Jain
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Indrajit Chatterjee and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sourav Chatterjee and
Sudipta Moitra
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Case
papers. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the instant case is the product
of a struggle between two groups over control of a company in respect whereof
litigations are pending before the Company Law Board.
2 . Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the gist of the allegation in the first information report is that the documents
and/or pleadings filed before the Company Law Board on behalf of the petitioner
were forged and fabricated. He further submitted that the forged documents have
already been seized and are in the possession of the Investigating Agency.
3 . Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the de facto complainant
submitted that the instant case portrays a brazen effort on the part of the petitioner
to subvert the process of law and procure orders from the Company Law Board on the
basis of forged and fabricated documents. The author of the said documents who is a
co-accused has disowned them and has a written letter to such an effect to the
Investigating Agency. He submitted that the gravity of the offence ought to persuade
the Court to reject the prayer for anticipatory bail.
4 . Mr. Biswas appearing for the State submitted that the investigating agency has
received letter from one Swarnendu Maity, a co-accused, stating that he had signed
the blank documents and papers due to coercion which were forged and fabricated
and filed before the Company Law Board. He further submitted that proclamation and
attachment has been issued against the petitioners on 24th September, 2014 and as
such the application of anticipatory bail is not maintainable..
5 . In rebuttal, Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the prayer for issuance of
proclamation and attachment against his client was mala fide and was made to
frustrate this application for anticipatory bail which was filed before this Court on
11th September, 2014 prior to such prayer for proclamation.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. We find that the dispute
arose over rival claims for control of the company which is presently the subject
matter of litigation before the Company Law Board. The allegation in the first

23-05-2021 (Page 1 of 2) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
 information report is that documents filed in the said proceeding before the company
law Board on behalf of the petitioner were forged and fabricated. Admittedly the
forged documents are already in the custody and control of the Investigating Agency.
It is claimed that the author of such documents who is also a co-accused has
disowned them and written a letter to the Investigating Agency that he signed such
documents without knowing the contents thereof upon influence of the petitioner.
7 . The genuineness or otherwise of the alleged forged documents appear to be the
subject matter of the enquiry before the Company Law Board. It also appears that the
author of those documents did not contemporaneously raise any objection in the
matter of execution of such documents under pressure from the petitioner. It is a
matter of investigation whether such claim of the maker of such allegedly forged
documents is genuine or not. However, in the light of the fact that the alleged forged
documents are in the domain and control of the Investigating Agency, we are of the
opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.
8 . We also note with displeasure that the Investigating Agency appears to have
overreached itself in obtaining proclamation and attachment against the petitioner at
a time when this Court was in seisin of the application for anticipatory bail. Although
the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail may not operate as a bar to arrest
the accused, the latter cannot be said to be absconding from the process of law
during the pendency of such application so as to justify issuance of an order of
proclamation and attachment against him. When a petitioner has approached the
Court for seeking anticipatory bail and the matter is pending for consideration, it
could not have been said by any stretch of imagination that such accused is
absconding and evading the process of law. Reference maybe made to Qamardin v.
Emperor reported in MANU/LA/0340/1922 : AIR 1922 Lahore 475. Hence, the
proclamation and attachment procured against the petitioners during the pendency of
this application is patently without jurisdiction and cannot eclipse the exercise of
discretionary power of this Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
9 . For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined in granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released
on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the
satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down
under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
11. The petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer of the case once a week until
further orders. This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

23-05-2021 (Page 2 of 2) www.manupatra.com Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University