CRR 3433 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 3433 of 2024 Basudev Samanta & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Another For the Petitioners : Mr. Arun Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashok Das, Adv. For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Anirban Dutta, Adv. Mr. Niloy Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Subhajit Manna, Adv. Mr. Arka Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Younus Sultan, Adv. Ms. Sunanda Samanta, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajdeep Biswas, Adv. Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Adv. Heard on : 15.09.2026 Judgment on : 15.09.2026 Uploaded on : 16.09.2026 2 CRR 3433 of 2024 [IN COURT] Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.:- 1. The instant application is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur in connection with Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4299/2023 arising out of Chandrakona (T) Police Station Case No. 455/2019. 2. The fact, in a nutshell, is that the de facto complainant, Parbati Charan Pramanik, lodged a complaint against the accused persons, invoking the provision of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatal, alleging, inter alia, that the complainant formed a company, namely, M/s. Medinipur Himghar (Pvt.) Ltd. with Bhagbati Jana, Sisir Kumar Poria and Basudeb Samanta. The present petitioners, having equal share, were the Directors of the Company. Basudeb Samanta used to look after the business of the company. Since 2006, Basudeb Samanta had been neglecting and avoiding the remaining Directors. For that reason, in the year 2017, the remaining Directors filed an 3 CRR 3433 of 2024 application before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata. From the reply filed by Basudeb Samanta before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata, the complainant came to know that by forging a large number of documents, he made his wife and sons shareholders of the said company, keeping the other Directors in the dark. 3. Upon direction of the learned A.C.J.M., an FIR was registered, being Chandrakona (T) Police Station Case No. 455/2019 under Sections 406/420/465/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, i.e., the present petitioners. 4. The petitioners filed an application before the concerned Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the same was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 144/2020. The learned Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur, granted anticipatory bail on 10.02.2020 in favour of the petitioners, imposing certain terms and conditions. 5. It is alleged that during investigation, the present petitioners threatened the witnesses and the de facto complainant and 4 CRR 3433 of 2024 also did not comply with the terms and conditions as imposed while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the State filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail. 6. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, being fully satisfied with the grounds set forth by the State for cancellation of bail, ultimately cancelled the anticipatory bail of the accused persons, except Protima Samanta @ Pratima, as she was a female accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed this revisional application. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court is palpably erroneous and illegal as it was passed without considering the actual materials. They always cooperated with the investigation. They did not threaten any of the witnesses during the investigation. No complaint has been filed by any of the witnesses against them before any Police Station; as such, the question of threatening does not 5 CRR 3433 of 2024 arise. Furthermore, they have informed the Investigating Officer that they are unable to produce the documents required by the Investigating Officer as Basudeb Samanta, the prime accused, lost those documents. A complaint was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Ghughudanga Out Post under Dumdum Police Station on 23rd March, 2018. The said complaint was registered as a GDE being No. 337(3)18 dated 23.03.2018. A copy of the same was also sent to the Investigating Officer. 8. It is further contended that the petitioners have also e-mailed some messages to the Investigating Officer. The application for cancellation was filed on false and frivolous grounds only to harass the petitioners for illegal gain. All the documents could have been collected by the Investigating Officer from the office of the ROC. Those documents can be easily available for verification of the handwriting of the accused persons, but that was not done by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6 CRR 3433 of 2024 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, raises a preliminary point that the instant application is not maintainable and the same should not be entertained as the impugned order is related to cancellation of the anticipatory bail of the petitioners herein. Furthermore, the petitioners have threatened the witnesses during investigation. They did not co-operate with the investigating Officer for proper investigation, and for that reason till date the charge-sheet has not been completed. He opposes the prayer of the petitioners. 10. The learned Counsel representing the State produces the case diary and submits that despite direction given by the Court to comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners never co- operated despite issuance of notice under Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the Investigating Officer asked the accused persons to produce the original Memorandum of Article of the company, Form 32A of ROC, original share transfer papers, original resolution book of the 7 CRR 3433 of 2024 company and other original documents of the company for the purpose of investigation and obtaining the opinion of an expert about the handwriting of the accused persons after verifying their signatures. Due to unavailability of the original documents, the Investigating Officer did not get the opportunity to send the original documents for examination of the handwriting of the accused persons. 11. It is further contended that when the officer went to the premises for search and seizure of the documents, nothing was found from the office of the said company and, therefore, he prepared a Nil seizure list. The Petitioners had given an undertaking that all those relevant documents would be submitted before the Investigating Officer or the learned Court below. However, those documents were neither supplied to the Investigating Officer nor to the learned Court below. 12. Having heard the rival submissions of the respective parties and upon perusal of the order, this Court finds that the learned Court below went through the case record and finally came to 8 CRR 3433 of 2024 the conclusion that the petitioners did not cooperate with the investigation despite imposing conditions. 13. This revisional application will be maintainable as it has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It confers on this court the inherent power to decide the case in hand on merits. The High Court can use its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to examine the validity of a bail or cancellation order to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 14. This Court is also satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court because, from the perusal of the documents annexed in the revisional application, it appears that the documents required by the Investigating Officer have been claimed lost in the year 2010, however, the petitioner no.1 lodged a complaint in the year 2018 after the lapse of 8 years is doubtful and unacceptable. Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that those documents were lost in 2010, why did the petitioners undertake to submit the same, and how was 9 CRR 3433 of 2024 the business of the company running smoothly till 2018 or even thereafter without those vital documents? 15. Despite undertaking to produce those documents to the investigating officer, the same were not produced. The accused persons did not even attend the police station nor did they cooperate with the investigation despite service of notice under Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Even for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that no documents were lying with the company, they should have attended the Police Station and cooperated with the investigation, narrating all the facts to the Investigating Officer. The learned Counsel submits that those documents were filed along with written objection before the learned Sessions Court. 17. This Court is unable to be convinced by such submission and, upon overall consideration of facts and materials available in the case diary, this Court does not find any clue regarding the threatening of witnesses by the present petitioners. However, this Court is satisfied that at the time of granting anticipatory 10 CRR 3433 of 2024 bail, the Sessions Court had imposed conditions as stipulated in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The condition stipulated in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quoted hereinbelow: - “438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. —(1) .......... (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including— (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) …” 11 CRR 3433 of 2024 18. So, from the perusal of the condition imposed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it transpires that the accused persons should have cooperated with the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. On two occasions, notice was served upon them, but they did not comply with the same. The fact that the accused persons did not comply with the conditions as imposed upon them while granting bail is sufficient and valid ground for cancellation of the Petitioners’ anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Sessions Court rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail of the petitioners and the same calls for no interference. 19. The revisional application being CRR/3433/2024 is, thus, dismissed. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 20. Case diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the State. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12 CRR 3433 of 2024 22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court below for information. 23. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this court. 24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) Later The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays for stay of this order for preferring appeal before the higher forum. Such Prayer is considered and rejected. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) Srimanta [A.R. (Ct.)]