24.08.2026 Item No. 17 Ct. No. 39 C.R.M.(A) 1981 of 2026 AN (REJECTED) In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with SEBI 33 of 2018 under Section 26(1) read with Section 24(1) and Section 27 of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 3 of the SEBI Act (Prohibition of fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices in Securities Market) Regulations 2003 read with Section 55A, 56, 60, 67, 68, 70, 2(36), 73 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 40 of Companies Act, 2013 and Regulations 6, 19, 4(2), 5(2)(B) and 8 of the SEBI Act (Issue and listing of DEBT Securities), Regulations 2008 read with Section 117B and 117C of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 12 of the SEBI Act, 1992 alongwith Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Section 436 and 439 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 presently pending before the Court of Hon'ble Special Court, 5th Court at Calcutta. In the matter of : Tahidur Rahaman Gayen … Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Roy Ms. Neelam Kumari Ms. Priyanka Patua Ms. Swagata Santra …for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudip Kr. Dutta Mr. S. Dutta Mr. Siddhartha Bose … for the SEBI. 1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and his father made him a Director in a Company viz. ATM Agro Project Ltd. when he was only 14 years old. He prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioner on any terms and conditions. 2. On the other hand, learned advocate representing the SEBI strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. He further submits that at the time of filing complaint, he attained majority and he was the Director of the aforesaid company. The case was lodged in the year 2018. Subsequently, warrant of arrest was issued and thereafter proclamation and order of attachment was issued by the learned trial court against the present petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusing the materials available on record, this Court finds that the offence against the petitioner is an economic offence involving more than 42 crore rupees, which was collected from the public at large. 4. Considering the nature of offence, seriousness of the crime and also being a proclaimed offender, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner and, thus, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. 5. C.R.M.(A) 1981 of 2026 stands dismissed. 6. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 2 7. The concerned Department is directed to supply urgent certified Photostat copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) 3