- (1.)Heard Mr. N.A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.)This is an application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Dharmanagar PS case no. 55 of 2014 dated 01.06.2014 alleging commission of offence under sections 120B/420/406/409/34 of the IPC and section 3 of the Tripura Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2000 and charge sheet submitted thereof being charge-sheet no. 06 of 2018 dated 29.01.2018 under sections 120B/420/406/409/34 of the IPC and section 3 of the Tripura Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2000 and Amendment Act of 2011. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, Smt. Kanika Maity is one of the Directors of the company, namely, I-Core E-Services Limited having its registered office at Kolkata and in the course of transaction of business, the petitioner along with her husband was arrested and put in custody for three years, in connection with the aforesaid case. Only in the month of December, 2018, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the High Court of Orissa, on executing an indemnity bond, keeping her property as security with the court concerned.
(3.)The said company also has a Branch at Dharmanagar, Tripura. During the period of her custody, in Orissa, the present case was registered and accordingly, SIT was formed to investigate into the matter. Thereafter, a production warrant was issued against the petitioner but, since she was in custody in Orissa jail, it was not possible on her part to appear before the investigating officer, in response to that production warrant. Now, after getting out of jail, she has filed the instant application, before this court, for granting her pre-arrest bail in connection with the aforesaid PS case. The instant case bearing Dharmanagar PS case no. 55 of 2014 has been tagged with two other cases being Dharmanagar PS case no. 54 of 2014 and Dharmanagar PS case no. 52 of 2014. Mr. Datta, learned PP has drawn my attention to the fact that the petitioner is also involved in other cases where an amount of Rs. 1,48,00,000/- is supposed to have been cheated by the petitioner and the company. However, this court is concerned with the present case relating to Dharmanagar PS case no. 55 of 2014 where a sum of Rs. 29,52,171/- is involved.
;