1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.190 OF 2024
(@ SLP(CRL.) No.11013 of 2023)
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants seek to set aside the rejection of anticipatory bail under the impugned order on the premise that the document in question, namely, a declaration dated 01.12.2015 was never provided to them and, therefore, not in their custody and in any case, they
have not relied upon it at any point of time.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a similar grievance has been made before the National Company Law Tribunal (for short, the NCLT) and the reason why the complaint was given, notwithstanding the earlier two complaints, was primarily with respect to the removal of the private respondent from the Directorship.
This has got nothing to do with the alleged declaration dated 01.12.2015.

4. The shareholding of the private respondent has been reduced to his knowledge over the years. The appellants have been cooperating with the investigation right from the issuance of notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and till the interim protection given by this Court. They have also appeared before the Investigating Officer on all occasions.

5. Learned senior counsel for the State and the private respondent submitted that the question is with respect to production of the declaration dated 01.12.2015, allegedly forged and fabricated by the appellants. The fact that the private respondent has approached the NCLT will not invalidate the ongoing criminal proceedings. The appellants are not cooperating with the investigation, particularly, with reference to the existence and production of the said declaration dated 01.12.2015. In such view of the matter, their custodial interrogation is required.

6. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order as it is only in connection to the dispute arising in the company, originally co-managed by the appellant No.1 and private respondent which is now in the hands of the appellants. The matter is also pending consideration before the NCLT.
Suffice it is to state that custodial interrogation of the appellants is not required, as they are cooperating with the investigation.

7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appellants shall continue to cooperate with the investigation. We make it clear that the observations made by us shall not have any bearing either in the further investigation or in the pending matter before the NCLT. The appellant are granted anticipatory bail subject to the condition that may be imposed by the Trial Court.
We also record the aforesaid statement with respect to the existence and usage of the declaration dated 01.12.2015.
8. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
NEW DELHI;
10 th JANUARY, 2024

ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11013/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-08-2023
in CRM No. 3186/2023 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 180868/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 10-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Adv.
Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. K.K. Tiwary, Adv.
Mr. T. Illayarasu, Adv.
Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv.
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR

Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sayantak Das, Adv.
Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR
Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

5
Leave granted.
The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order, subject to
the condition that the appellants shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.
We make it clear that the observations made by us shall not have any bearing either in
the further investigation or in the pending matter before the NCLT. The appellant are
granted anticipatory bail subject to the condition that may be imposed by the Trial
Court. We also record the aforesaid statement with respect to the existence and usage of
the declaration dated 01.12.2015.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)