27.08.2026 Serial no.4 Piya Ct. No. 30 CRM(A) 800 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 CRAN 2 of 2026 Pawan Agarwal & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mr. Safdar Azam, Ms. Priyanka Sarkar …………… For the Petitioners Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Abhinav Rakshit Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria Ms. Akansha Singhania ……….. For the De facto complainant Mr. Somnath Adhikary Mr. Amit Roy …………… For the State 1. The petitioners pray for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with GR Case No. 689 of 2024 arising out of Topsia Police Station Case No. 43 dated 14.04.2024 under Sections 120B /467 /468 /471 /474 /421 /420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The allegations in the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. leading to the present case are:- 2 i. The petitioners are brothers and other relatives of the complainant. ii. Allegations are embezzlement of valuable securities as well as the bank balance of the Petitioner's deceased mother Late Shanti Devi Agarwal causing financial losses to the petitioner and also to the other family members to tune of Rs.30,00,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Crores Only). iii. After the death of the Petitioner's father, Late Arjun Das Agarwal, the Petitioner's family entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which was duly stamped and signed. The said Memorandum of Understanding dated 31st October, 2010 was recorded to be given effect from 1st April, 2008. iv. In terms of Clause 3(A) (iv) of the Memorandum of Understanding, it was further recorded that “These shares etc. will remain in the safe custody of Sri Arun Agarwal. 3. The petitioners herein deny the allegation and by way of supplementary affidavit has filed print out of the consolidated account statement of Late Shanti Agarwal by NSDL along with present demat holding and valuation statement as issued by Kotal Securities Limited. 4. Parties have filed their written notes and the State has placed the case diary. 3 5. The petitioners state that the relationship between their mother and the de facto complainant was strained. 6. The de facto complainant has filed civil suits against the petitioners and others. 7. A complaint case no. C/724/2023 against the petitioner no. 2 and 3 for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 /419 /420 /423 /464 /467 /468 /470 /471 /120B /34 of the Indian Penal Code was quashed by the High Court in CRR 4976 of 2023 vide order dated 16.05.2025. It appears that the dispute in the said case was entirely civil in nature relating to certain tenancy. 8. The state on placing the case diary has submitted that:- The investigation of this case has been taken up by Anti Fraud Section, DD, from Topsia Police Station on 08.08.2026. a) The petitioners herein during and after the life time of Shanti Agarwal, between 2008 and 2020, opened Bank and demat accounts with HDFC, Kotak, all with Shanti Agarwal’s forged signatures, and cheques bearing her signature which were also forged as per report of the QDEB, CID, and transferred funds by withdrawal of FDS, created fixed FD’s in the name of the petitioners, without the knowledge of Shanti Agarwal, by using phone number and email address of the petitioners. Once 4 transfer fund was complete, the accounts were closed. 9. The State further submits that the fraudulent Kotak Securities demat account [Client ID 35127063] served as a transit point for the shares holding of late Shanti Devi in her primary holding account at HDFC Securities. Investigation revealed that shares were transferred from the original HDFC Securities account into different demat accounts of the accused and also into this forged Kotak account, and from there, into different accounts, the funds were transferred to the forged account created. 10. The investigating agency state that investigation is active and the agency’s efforts to unearth the huge misappropriate with evident criminal intent be accumulated. 11. The accuseds/petitioners have stressed on the fact that the case registered in 2024, should be nearing completion and the dispute in the present case is clearly a family property dispute which is civil in nature. As such the detention of the petitioners who are willing to co-operate with the investigation is not justified under any circumstances. 12. On hearing the parties and considering the materials in the case diary, it appears that though the case has been initiated in the year 2024, the delay prima facie has been explained, as it took some time to reliaze that such 5 huge scale forgery had taken place and the Banks also rightfully refused to provide confidential information to complainant, though it appears, that the Banks are all along co-operating with the investigating agency. 13. The de facto complainant has relied upon the judgments in:- i. Pratibha Manchanda and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr., (2023) 8 SCC 181, Para 21. ii. Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar and Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 379, Para 19. 14. The investigation till this stage prima facie shows forgery being prima facie proved along with misappropriation by way of opening various accounts by forging signature and transfer of funds to personal accounts of the petitioners/accuseds. 15. Considering the huge transfer of funds to the account of the accused persons by forging signatures (proved by way of hand writing expert) and that the case has been recently transferred to the anti fraud section detective department, who having gone through the materials have stated that efforts are on for tracing the remainder of misappropriated assets, to determine the full extent of the money and shares credited to the account of the petitioners, who are alleged to be the exclusive beneficiaries of co-ordinated effort to misappropriate the estates assets, interfering at stage, will be an abuse of the process of law. 6 16. The investigation by the detective department needs to be given time to conduct its free and fair investigation as the investigation till date has unearthed serious misappropriation and evidence of forgery proved by way of hand writing expert. 17. The petitioners herein submits that they are ready and willing to provide their specimen signatures to ascertain as to who has forged the said signatures, will face a hurdle as one of the principal accused Sri Arun Agarwal is dead. 18. The investigation agency would require to collect the admitted signature of Sri Arun Agarwal for forensic examination, which hopefully the banks may be able to provide, since the forgery is evident even during the lifetime of Shanti Agarwal. 19. The contention of the petitioners that the dispute is a family property dispute, and thus is civil in nature, does not in any way justify forging of signature for misappropriation of funds for unlawful gain to deprive another of their lawful entitlement when the one deprived has put complete trust and faith in another which is broken. In this case there prima facie also appears to be the intention to so, which was done with complete knowledge, willfully and as such does not deserve to be given the benefit of being called a ‘family’ when it is against the interest of a person who is also ‘family’. When it comes to property being 7 misappropriated with forged signatures (proved) and removing traces of the money/fund transfer, the ingredients to prima facie constitute the offence alleged are present in the case. 20. Thus at this stage of investigation, considering the evidence collected by the investigating agency and yet to be unearthed, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected at this stage. 21. CRM(A) 800 of 2026 is dismissed. 22. All connected Applications, if any, stands disposed of. 23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 24. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court. 25. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)