25/11/2025 D/L – 5 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed C.R.M.(A) 2233 of 2025 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Baguiati P.S Case no. 338 of 2025 dated 24.5.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/3(5) of the BNS. In the matter of: Siddharth Jaiswal ...Petitioner. Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Prasun Mukherjee Mr. Mainak Gupta Ms. Rajkumari Priyaka Devi Mr. Subhamoy Dutta …for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad Mr. Vishal Mani Mr. Prateek Raj Ms. Anandita Auddy Das Mr. Pronojit Roy …for the de-facto complainant. Ms. Sreyashee Biswas Ms. Nandini Chatterjee …for the State. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Perused the case diary. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The de-facto complainant used to send money from Germany so that the same could be invested in stocks. This had been going on since 2014. As per the FIR, the de-facto complainant used to transfer money either to the accused no. 1 or to the accused no. 2 with instructions upon the present petitioner to invest in stocks. As the de-facto complainant did not open a 2 demat account, transactions were done through another demat account. I.D. and Password for the said demat account was also sent to the petitioner as would be evident from the whatsapp chat. Unfortunately, there was a net loss. During such transaction, a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs had been given to the de-facto complainant’s account and some other sums of money were sent through the de-facto complainant’s brother. However, there was a net loss that took place in such transactions. There was no intention to cheat or there was no illegal gain made by the petitioner through such transactions. Periodically statements were sent to the de-facto complainant by Whatsapp. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She submits that there is a bar under Regulation 26 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers) Regulation 1992 warranting that a stock broker could be penalized for not maintaining client’s accounts. The stock broker should have also segregated the funds of the client from other funds including his. No details of how the petitioner proceeded with investing such money was given to the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant was kept in dark and all his money was used for own purpose of the accused. In all, a sum of Rs.2.63 Crores and odd had been transferred to the 3 petitioner and his family members with the understanding that the same would be invested for the de-facto complainant in shares for profit. In effect, the petitioner did not share any demat account details for such transactions and later on, simply said that there had been a net loss. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on a report, which is taken on record and submits as follows. The case was started by filing an application before the learned Magistrate. As per the report, there is a long chat history in Whatsapp between the accused and the de- facto complainant. After verifying the chat history, it was seen that the accused shared I.D. and password of a demat account to the de-facto complainant in 2024. Therefore, as per the report, at least for some time, the de-facto complainant had knowledge about the share trading and had access to the aforementioned demat account. Learned counsel for the State also refers to the demat account statements as seized from the petitioner. He points to the statements of certain sub-brokers as also the demat account statement of one Manoj Chauhan. According to these, the demat account of the said Manoj Chauhan was used to make investment for the present petitioner. 6. Considering the above and the other materials available in the case diary and the fact that the de-facto 4 complainant had been purportedly sending money for investment in shares since 2014, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to further conditions that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall meet the I.O once a fortnight till submission of report in final form. 8. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)