Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The State Of West Bengal vs Unknown on 21 February, 2014
Author: Toufique Uddin
Bench: Toufique Uddin
1 21.2.2014
C.R.M. 1633 of 2014 In re:: An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2)/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
And In the matter of : The State of West Bengal ................Petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Anand Keshri, Advocate ...............For the Petitioner/State Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, Advocate Mr. Brajesh Jha, Advocate Mr. Sujan Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Md. Bani Israil, Advocate ......... For the Opposite Party This is a prayer for cancellation of bail lodged by the State/prosecution under Section 439(2)/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the following grounds:
i) The accused persons were caught red handed with bribe money of Rs. 40000/-
by the trap team of ACB in presence of independent witnesses.
ii) They, by virtue of their important position, held may tamper with evidence as they are back in the same post in the office.
iii) The accused persons may cause harm to the complainant for which a GD Entry was lodged.
iv) Source information reveals that they are habitual takers of bribe and as such they may dispose of or hide their disproportionate assets.
2
v) The I.O. lost several opportunities for development of the case. Further, the investigation has been hampered on account of possible recoveries.
vi) After release of the accused persons on bail, they have become emboldened. In support of their contention the learned Public Prosecutor placed before me the following judgments:
a) Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 237;
b) Puran vs. Rambilas & Anr. reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124;
c) Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1581;
d) Anwari Begum vs. Sher Mohammad & Anr.
reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4641;
e) Deepak Singchi vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5539 and
f) Manjit Prakash & Ors. vs. Shobha Devi & Anr. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5099.
The learned counsel for the Opposite Party/accused persons submitted that there is no misuse of the privilege of bail obtained by the accused persons. They are quite peace-loving citizens and they are not tampering with evidence etc. So saying, the learned counsel submitted that there is no ground to 3 cancel the bail order. To strengthen his case, he submitted the following judgment:
a) Devender Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 753 and
b) Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
reported in (2009) 11 SCC 392.
I have heard the submissions of both the parties present.
The fact germane in this case is that one of the accused persons is a Joint BDO, Nandigram, Block II who is Opposite Party No. 1 in the present case, while the Opposite Party No. 2 is an Inspector of Backward Classes Welfare attached to the said Block Office. On query, the learned Counsel for the State gave a go-by to the aspect of post conduct behavior of the accused persons.
The learned Public Prosecutor placed more thirst on the copy of the impugned order and submitted that the learned Court below passed undue comments and had taken into consideration improper considerations by making an observation that "the accused persons are responsible government employees and this court is of view that if bail is granted to these accused persons, the cause of prosecution case would not be prejudiced as admittedly seizure has already been made."
4
I have considered the submissions of Learned Lawyers of both the parties and the judgments cited before me. After going through the materials on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I mention that on the very first day of transit (remand) the I.O. of this case being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Branch, W.B. prayed for judicial custody. But yet, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the factum that the mid-day mill or its equivalent value are the public money and the present petitioners are both responsible Government Officers, who were charged with such unbecoming and serious offence. They were allegedly caught red handed by a trap operation. The arrest of such Officers is not only for the investigation. The racket, if there is any, and the persons involved therewith deserve to be busted. The seizure is done, but still there remain other factors for proper investigation.
Therefore, the observation made by the learned Court below is not only unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, but also prejudged. He ought to have avoided such a comment.
Now, the other aspect of the matter is whether the bail already granted is to be cancelled or not.
Undisputedly, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courts in the decisions referred to above 5 by the learned Public Prosecutor are necessary for consideration of the instant case. In Dolat Ram's case (supra) the Hon'ble court observed as follows:
"Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."
Now, it is to be seen if any supervening action has rendered the release of the accused no longer conducive to a fair trial. Presently, no allegation has been ventilated that the petitioners are doing such acts as are causing hamper of investigation.
In the case of Manjit Singh (supra) the Hon'ble court propounded that the rejection of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings and cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away liberty of an individual. But it has to be considered if the grant of bail is sustainable in law or not or has caused any serious hamper in investigation. 6
In the instant case, the learned Court below granted bail on the very first day of production of the accused persons. At that time there was prayer for J.C and not P.C. But since so many days have elapsed after passing of the order and there is no adverse report, I do not think that it would be appropriate to cancel the bail though there was substance in plea that the impugned order granting bail suffered from various infirmities. Reliance may be put on the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. (supra).
There is no prayer even for custodial interrogation or custodial trial. Accused persons' conduct subsequent to the grant of bail application and supervening circumstances alone are relevant. Reliance may be had on 2005 CrLJ 4149. It has to be ensured that the release of the accused persons on bail does not hamper investigation. Only on the basis of comment passed by the Learned Court below, to my mind, there arises no ground of cancellation of bail.
Since the accused persons have already been granted bail and the investigation is going on, the petitioners are directed to meet the Investigating Officer every alternate day until further order or submission of charge-sheet, whichever is earlier. Further, they shall not threaten or influence the witnesses.
7
With the above observations, the case is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied according to rules.
(Toufique Uddin, J.)