Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Promod Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 December, 2009
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 4097 of 2008 With CRAN No. 3120 of 2009 Sri Promod Kumar Mondal versus State of West Bengal & Anr.
For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Mukherjee For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Aniket Mitra Heard On : December 18th, 2009. Judgment On : 21-12-2009.
The present petitioner, who has been arraigned as an accused in connection with an offence punishable under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act, after his arrest was produced before the Learned Judge, Special Court, Barasat on 10th June, 2007. When the petitioner prayed for bail, submitting that already a sum of Rs. 57,780/- has been deposited out of the provisional 2 assessment amount and undertake to pay the balance amount after final assessment and the Learned Judge enlarged him on interim bail.
2. In the meantime, the final assessment was made and the amount assessed was of Rs. 2,48,140/-. Against the said assessment, the petitioner moved a Writ application before this Hon'ble High Court whereby this Court directed the petitioner to deposit further 25 per cent of the amount finally assessed. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 44,184/-. Thus, the total amount he deposited is Rs. 1,01,964/-. Thereafter, an appeal against such final assessment, the appellate authority enhanced the assessed amount to Rs. 3,30,444/-. The said order of the appellate court was also challenged before this Hon'ble High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction when this Hon'ble Court directed the petitioner to make a further payment of Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, he deposited another sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, he has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,76,077/- including a sum of Rs. 24,106/- as the pilferage loss. However, the learned Trial Court has not yet confirmed the petitioner's interim bail which was granted to him as far back as on 16th June, 2007, nearly, two years and six months back.
It is true that the interim bail was time to time extended on the prayer of the petitioner and on his specific undertaking to deposit the entire amount which has been assessed finally.
3. Be that as it may, a criminal court is not supposed to act as a recovery agent and any application of bail moved before it ought to be decided on merit, although, in this case, admittedly, it is the petitioner who approached the 3 court with a prayer for bail on an undertaking to deposit the assessed amount. Already in terms of the order, from time to time, passed by this Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner has deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,76,077/-. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the Learned Judge should dispose of his application on merit without insisting him to keep his undertaking.
4. I, therefore, direct the Learned Special Judge, Barasat under Electricity Act to dispose of the petitioner's application for bail on merit. It is, further direct, while considering the petitioner's prayer for bail on merit, the Learned Judge must not be oblivious of the fact that already the petitioner has deposited a considerable amount of money out of the assessed amount in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and he has been enjoying the interim bail for more than two years and six months.
In view of disposal of the main criminal revisional application, the application for extension of interim order being CRAN No. 3120 of 2009 is, thus, disposed of.
Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. )