Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bhaskarananda Halder vs State Of West Bengal And Another on 16 May, 2016
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1 Sl No. 642 16.05.2016
C.R.M. 2985 of 2016 rejected pk In Re: An application for cancellation of bail In the matter of: Bhaskarananda Halder Versus State of West Bengal and another Mr. Srikanta Dutta, Mrs. Rituparna Sarkar Dutta ... For the Petitioner Mrs. Ratna Ghosh ... For the State Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Arijit Ghosh ... for the opposite party no. 2.
By this application the petitioner seeks to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 by order dated 15.1.2016 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 10089 of 2015.
Counsel for the de facto complainant/petitioner submits that a property was purchased by him from the opposite party no. 2. It was detected at the time of mutation that the properties covered by L. R. Plot Nos. 563 and 659 was vested in the State. This was not informed to the petitioner by the opposite party no. 2 at the time of purchase. Therefore the complaint was filed under Section 420/406 IPC. On 15.1.2016 the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. was granted. The observations made in the said order amounts to prejudging the issue and this therefore renders the order illegal and calls for interference and cancellation of the bail granted. Reliance is placed on (2012) 4 SCC 379 for the proposition that while granting anticipatory bail in a serious offence the parameters be considered and reasons be recorded. Only in exceptional case anticipatory bail should be granted.
Counsel for the State produces the case diary and takes us to pages 4, 14, 15 and 41.
2Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that in a case of cancellation post bail conduct ought to be considered but no allegation of post bail conduct finds mention in the petition. The opposite party no. 2 purchased the said property in 2009 and it was also not within his knowledge that the property was vested. The office of the BL & LRO has not informed him when the said plot of land was vested. No notice was served upon him. As he was a bona fide purchaser, the allegation alleged against him is totally baseless. In 2009 khajna in respect of said plots was also deposited by him in the office of Collectorate and the same was also received.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and on scrutiny of the case records it appears that deeds of title has been seized. An extract from the records of the BL &LRO found in the case diary shows that plot no. 659 is vested in the State of West Bengal. There is of course no evidence in respect of plot no. 563 but investigation is still on going. Charge sheet is yet to be submitted. In the order dated 15.1.2016 the reason for grant of anticipatory bail was non- requirement of custodial interrogation and this cannot be faulted nor can any objection be raised in respect of the said observations made by the court below.
Therefore on scrutiny of the materials in the case diary grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was justified and the order dated 15.1.2016 calls for no interference and this application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3