Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Satyendra Nath Bose vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 3 June, 2013
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
23
03.06.2013
sm
C.R.M.3386 of 2013
Satyendra Nath Bose vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
In Re: Application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 27.02.2012 in connection with
Thakurpukur Police Station Case No.256 of 2011 under
sections 408/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr.Tirthankar Ghosh
Mr.Manoj Malhotra .. for the petitioner.
Mr.Tanmay Chaudhury. .. for the State.
Mr.Swapan Mallick. .. for the second respondent.
The petitioner in this CRM under s.439(2) CrPC dated February 27, 2012 is seeking the following relief:-
"In the circumstances stated above, it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to cancel the bail of the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or to pass such further or other order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
On the basis of a complaint of the petitioner that the second respondent committed offences under ss.408/420/ 467/468/471 IPC a Criminal Court passed an order directing the officer in charge of Thakurpukur police station to register an FIR. Accordingly an FIR No.256 dated May 27, 2011 (CRM p.20) was registered.
The second respondent apprehending arrest filed an application under s.438 CrPC before the Sessions Judge, South 2 24-Parganas. On January 16, 2012 advocate prayed for adjournment, which was allowed. Section 438 application was fixed on February 14, 2012.
On February 14, 2012 the second respondent filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore for bail. In paras.2 and 3 of the application, he stated as follows:-
"2.That no bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been rejected nor has been filed by the ld.Advocate.
3.That the present petitioner hereby suffered detention for long 55 days in connection with the same complainant arising out of same case of action vide Bidhanagar PS. 183/09 which is still under investigation."
By an order dated February 14, 2012 the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted the second respondent bail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded as follows:-
"Accd. Is taken into custody. Ld.lawyer for the accd.moved the bail plaintiff. Ld.APP opposed. It isd mention in bail petition. No petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has rejected or filed before heigher forum. Ity is found from the xerox copy of certified copy of order sheet that the accd. person on CB.ld. ACJM Court of Bidhannagar 24 Parganas (N) that S. Bidhannagar PS Case No.183/09. The accd. person are in custody for a period of about 2 months and thereafter he was enlarged on bail."
On February 15, 2012 the second respondent filed an application before the Sessions Judge in connection with his s.438 application.
Considering the second respondent's application filed on February 15, 2012 the Sessions Judge passed an order dated February 15, 2012, which is quoted below:-
"The record is put up by petition, Learned Advocate for the petitioner does not intend to press the petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioner is rejected being not pressed."3
The certified copy of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated February 14, 2012 produced with the CRM reveals that the petitioner obtained bail. The specific case of the petitioner is that the second respondent obtained bail granted by an order dated February 14, 2012 making false statements that he applied for anticipatory bail under s.438 CrPC.
Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the false statements making which the second respondent obtained bail, the bail should be cancelled. Advocate for the second respondent has submitted that it is incorrect to say that a false statement was made, because it was only a mis-statement. He said that considering small mistake and the period that has been elapsed from the date the order granting bail was passed, this Court may not cancel bail granted to the second respondent.
We are unable to accept that the statements made in the application dated February 14, 2012 the second respondent committed a mistake. His statement in the application once read with his application filed before the Sessions Judge on February 15, 2012 lead to a conclusion that he made false statements in the application on February 14, 2012 seeking bail. As noted hereinbefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate specifically noted the second respondent's case stated in his application dated February 14, 2012 that he had not filed any application for anticipatory bail. This was a significant feature of the order granting the second respondent bail. in our opinion, it is a clear case where the second respondent obtained bail by making a false statement before the court of law.
The question is whether the bail order obtained making false statements. We have already held that the application on the 4 basis whereof the bail was granted contained the statement which the petitioner stated that it was a false case. Hence the question is there are good grounds to grant bail is irrelevant. Even if there are good grounds, his application for bail was obtained to be rejected; for in that he made a false statement. It is of no consequence that the second respondent is enjoying the benefit of the order granted him bail for more than a year. The petitioner on whose complaint the FIR was lodged took immediate steps for cancellation of bail. In our opinion, a person deliberately committed a wrong cannot be permitted to enjoy the liberty of bail.
For these reasons, we allow the CRM, set aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated February 14, 2012, cancel the bail granted to the second respondent and commit him to jail custody. Nothing herein shall prevent the second respondent for moving the fresh bail application that, if filed, shall be decided by the court concerned on its own merit. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.) (Subal Baidya, J.)