Tuhin Majumdar @ Tuhin Majumder V. The Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./7961/2022

AI Insights

Tuhin Majumdar @ Tuhin Majumder sought anticipatory bail from the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, apprehending his arrest in connection with a case involving embezzlement of Rs. 3 Crore from various investors by M/s AIM Fill Realty Industries Limited, where he was a director. Initially, the petitioner was not named in the FIR or the first charge sheet by the local police. However, after the CBI took over the investigation, he was included in the charge sheet under various sections of the IPC and the PCMCS (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioner argued that he had no direct interface with the investors and had resigned from the company before the alleged embezzlement occurred. The CBI opposed the bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s role as a director during the relevant time. The court, after considering the arguments and the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801285 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: 2021(1) SCC 773
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, PCMCS (Banning) Act, 1978
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; CHANDANA KUMARI; NITISH SARTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAILESH
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; CBI; Charge Sheet; Company; Director; Embezzlement; Investigation
• Section: 6; 5; 4; 468; 420; 471; 120B; 406; 467

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 7961 of 2022 ------- Tuhin Majumdar @ Tuhin Majumder … …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI … …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI. Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, AC to ASGI ----- Oral Order 10 / Dated : 10 .05.2023 Apprehending his arrest, petitioner- Tuhin Majumdar @ Tuhin Majumder has moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with RC Case No. 02(S)/2016 registered under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of S.D.J.M.-cum-Special J.M., CBI, Dhanbad. Heard the parties. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner was one of the directors of M/s AIM Fill Realty Industries Limited which was incorporated in the year 2010. Dumka P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 was registered on 11.05.2013 on the basis of written report lodged by Mukesh Ranjan against the Director of AIM Fill Realty Industries Limited regarding embezzlement of Rs. 3 Crore of different investors. The name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet on 30.06.2013 against Parasnath Rout and others. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the investigation and charge sheet submitted by the police. Investigation was taken over by the CBI in compliance the direction of this Court in WP(PIL) No. 1635 of 2014. After investigation, the CBI submitted charge sheet on 05.02.2016 against the Managing Director of the Company , including this petitioner as the Director of the Company under Sections 120B, 420, 409 of IPC and Sections 4, 5, 6 of the PCMCS (Banning) Act, 1978. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no interface with the customers who had invested the amount in the company which will be apparent from the fact that he was neither named in the FIR nor the police after investigation submit charge sheet against him. There is no material to show that there was any money trail which ended in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner was the Director in the company till 05.07.2011. The petitioner was himself not happy with the manner and functioning of the company and he submitted his resignation. The petitioner has co-operated with the investigation and charge-sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2021(1) SCC 773. Learned ASGI for the CBI has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner was Director of the Company at the relevant time and defrauded the deposits of poor investors. It is submitted that the instant case has been registered under the direction of Hon’ble the Division Bench passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.1635 of 2014. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below and subject to the condition that one of the bailor(s) must be Income Tax Payee and subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/AKT Uploaded/ "