9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 06.01.2014 under Sections 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Casters and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. The opposite party is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of three days from the date of this order in default, the trial court is at liberty to issue warrant of arrest for committing the opposite party to custody during the trial of the case. Application disposed off. - CRM No. 2757 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - R.K. Bag, J. For the Appellant : Ayan Bhattacharjee. For the Respondents : Sourav Chatterjee and Pritam Chatterjee. JUDGMENT R.K. Bag, J. 1. The petitioner/State of West Bengal has prayed for cancellation of bail of the opposite party - Rakesh Kumar Singh by filing an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail was granted to the opposite party by Learned Single Judge of this Court on February 27, 2014 in C.R.M. No. 3434 of 2014 which arises out of Hastings Police Station Case No. 9 of 2014 dated 06.01.2014 under Sections 341/323 of the Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r closure of court proceedings of the said criminal case and the opposite party rushed to the Investigating Officer of the case, threatened him with dire consequences and tried to snatch the papers of the criminal case from him. This fact was brought to the notice of Learned Judge of the trial court by the Investigating Officer of the case immediately after this incident on February 19, 2015. However, Learned Judge of the trial court did not take any action on the ground that the police have already registered the criminal case and took up the investigation. The Hare Street Police Station Case No. 107 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015 under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the opposite party and others on the basis of the written complaint submitted by Arvind Singh, who accompanied the de facto complainant and other prosecution witnesses before the trial court. Similarly, Hare Street Police Station Case No. 108 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015 under Sections 353/506/379/511 of the Indian Penal Code was also started against the opposite party on the basis of the written complaint submitted by Biswanath Chaki, the Investigating Officer of the case in connection with which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3577 of 2015 in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 107 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015 after detention in custody for a period of 109 days. Mr. Chatterjee also contends that the opposite party was granted bail by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta on March 17, 2015 in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 108 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015 after detention in custody for 19 days. Relying on Shiv Mohan Kapoor V. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 632 Mr. Chartterjee argues that the opposite party may be allowed to remain on bail as he has also suffered detention in custody for 109 days and 19 days respectively in connection with two criminal cases registered against him in respect of the incident on February 19, 2015. Mr. Chatterjee has also relied on Abdul Basit V. Md. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 in order to urge that the bail granted by Learned Single Judge of this Court can be cancelled only by the Supreme Court and not by this Court. 6. Admittedly, the opposite party is facing trial in connection with SC and ST Case No. 1 of 2014 arising out of Hastings Police Station Case No. 9 of 2014 dated 06.01.2014 under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are Street Police Station Case No. 107 dated 19.02.2015 unerringly point out that the opposite party was bent on restraining the de facto complainant and other prosecution witnesses from giving evidence against him before the trial court in connection with SC and ST Case No. 1 of 2014. So, the opposite party has misused the liberty granted to him by Learned Single Judge on February 27, 2014 in C.R.M. No. 3434 of 2014. 7. Now, I would like to deal with the decisions cited by Learned Counsel of both parties. It is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that Learned Public Prosecutor has no authority to file an application on behalf of the State for cancellation of bail of the opposite party, though Learned Public Prosecutor can appear and plead on behalf of the State without any written authority in any inquiry, trial or appeal under Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Bhattacharjee, Learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the petitioner/State of West Bengal has produced a copy of written authorisation issued by the Administrative Officer, Office of the Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal under Memo No. 3010-A/HC/GA-12/15 dated March 27, 2015, which indicates that h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, the Supreme Court held that once it is found that the bail was granted on untenable grounds, the same can be cancelled even when there was no supervening circumstances for cancellation of the bail. The observation made by the Supreme Court in Paragraph 24 is worth mentioning: 24. In Puran V. Rambilas it was noted as follows: (SCC p. 345, para 11). 11. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is made clear by this Court in Gurucharan Singh V. State (Delhi Admn.). In that case the Court observed as under: (SCC p. 124, para 16). 16....If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17. In this context, it is profitable to render reliance upon the decision of this Court in Puran V. Rambilas. In the said case, this Court held (SCC p. 345, para 11) that the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is absolutely different from cancelling an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or because of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation. In Narendra K. Amin V. State of Gujarat the three-Judge Bench of this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and further drawn the distinction between the two in respect of relief available in review or appeal. In this case, the High Court had cancelled the bail granted to the appellant in exercise of power under Section 439(2) of the Code. In appeal, it was contended before this Court that the High Court had erred by not appreciating the distinction between the parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail. The Bench while affirming the principle laid down in Puran case has observed that when irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration by the court granting order of bail, the same makes the said order vulnerable and subject to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uoted in the report from 7 to 24 are from the order of the High Court. In the absence of any proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, I am unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party should be allowed to remain on bail as he was in custody for a period of 109 days and 19 days respectively in connection with the two cases started against him for his post bail conduct. 14. I have already observed that the opposite party threatened the Investigating Officer of the case and led the miscreants to physically assault the companions of the de facto complainant and the prosecution witnesses outside the court room on 19th February, 2015 and thereby he violated the condition of bail imposed on him and also blatantly misused the liberty granted to him by the court. This is not a case where the State has prayed for cancellation of bail on the ground that the order is unjustified or illegal or perverse. This is a case where the State has prayed for cancellation of bail of the accused who misused the liberty and who violated the condition of bail and who misconducted himself after obtaining bail. Accordingly, I am inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
