1

05.11.2015.
387.
mb/aa

(O.P)
C.R.M. 10538 of 2015
In Re:- An application for cancellation of bail under Sections
439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on
03.11.2015.
In the matter of : Central Bureau of Investigation
Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu,
Mr. Asraf Ali.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Sudipto Moitra,
Niladri Bhattacharyya,
Souvik Mitter,
Sabyasachi Banerjee,
Uttiyo Mallick,
Soham Banerjee

Petitioner.

For the Petitioner

For the opposite party

Learned senior counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of

Investigation severely criticises the order granting bail on the
ground that the Vacation Judge had not acceded to his prayer for
adjournment even for a single day although he was unable to
assist the Court on the date of hearing due to circumstances
beyond his control. He draws attention of this Court to the
application made in that regard before the said judge. He
strenuously argues that there was no pressing urgency for
insisting on the hearing of the bail application on that date itself

and no prejudice would have been caused to the accused person if

the same had been adjourned to another date. On the other hand,
the investigating agency was severely prejudiced as it was unable
to effectively assist the Court due to absence of the investigating
personnel. It is further brought to our notice that there is no
reflection in the impugned order as to what was the change of
circumstances since the rejection of the bail by this Court on 6th
August, 2015 which prompted the Vacation Judge to grant bail.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the accused person
being an influential minister in the State Government there is
every likelihood of abusing his powers to influence and/or
intimidate witnesses.
On the other hand, Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel
appearing for the accused-opposite party submits that the
supplementary charge sheet was filed after the rejection of bail by
this Honble Court on 6th August, 2015. He further submits that
adequate opportunity was given to the investigating agency
inasmuch as notice was served upon them on 14th October, 2015
specifically indicating the date of hearing. He also submits that
the order granting bail is a well-reasoned one and does not require
interference by this Court.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, we find
that the learned Vacation Judge had notwithstanding the prayer

for adjournment on the part of the Central Bureau of Investigation

proceeded with the hearing of the bail application and had granted
bail on merits. We also do not find any observation as to change of
circumstances since the rejection of the bail by this Honble Court
on 6th August, 2015 in the said order although submission in that
regard has been made across the Bar.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to
be heard on merits. We also feel as the matter relates to a prayer
for cancellation of bail which had been earlier turned down by the
Regular Bench, the same ought to be placed before the self-same
Bench for hearing on merits.
Accordingly, we direct that the matter to appear before the
Regular Bench for further hearing on 17th November, 2015 subject
to the convenience of the said Regular Bench.
Affidavit-in-opposition to the application shall be filed on 16th
November, 2015 and an advance copy thereof shall be handed over
to the Central Bureau of Investigation by 13th November, 2015.
Reply thereto, if any, be filed on the date of the hearing.
Bearing in mind the fact that the instant case involves a
multi-crore scam relating to a well-known chit fund company
wherein the opposite party, who is a Cabinet Minister of the State
of West Bengal, is alleged to be involved in conspiracy with the
directors of the said company in misappropriating an enormous

sum of money running to crores invested by innocent depositors

and in view of the fact that he continues to hold such responsible
office giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of his misusing
such influential status to threaten and intimidate witnesses, we
feel pending hearing of the application some stringent conditions
ought to be imposed on the accused/opposite party to restrain
such proclivities.
We are informed that the opposite party is presently in a
medical institution receiving treatment. We, therefore, direct that
in the event the opposite party is released from the medical
institution, he shall remain at his residence at 32/B, Dhirendra
Nath Ghosh Road, Kolkata 700 025 under police surveillance and
shall not move out of his residence except for medical emergencies
and for the purposes of interrogation and/or investigation until
further orders. CBI shall also be at liberty to deploy appropriate
surveillance of the petitioner at the medical institution to ensure
the protection of its witnesses and/or preservation of evidence in
the meantime.
Such arrangement, however, being an interim one shall not
have any bearing in the matter of final disposal of the application
for cancellation of bail on merits.
(Mir Dara Sheko, J.)

(Joymalya Bagchi,, J.)