Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Icha Mondal @ Rinku & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 25 August, 2014
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.941 of 2014
Icha Mondal @ Rinku & Anr.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty.
For the Opp. Party No.2: Mr. Debasish Banerjee.
For the State : Mr. Amarta Ghosh.
Heard on : 21-08-2014.
Judgment on : 25.8.2014.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
The subject matter of challenge in this criminal revision is an order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alipore cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners in connection with Diamond Harbour Police Station Case No.209/2012 under Sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners on 31st October, 2012 and thereafter, they were released on regular bail on 12th November, 2012.
2It is further submitted that soon thereafter, an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Case No.12687/2012 was filed before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alipore on the ground that the petitioners obtained the anticipatory bail by suppressing the fact that earlier their application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the self-same court. It is then submitted that the said application for cancellation of bail was allowed nearly one year two months after the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail. It is then contended that there was no allegation of misuse of the liberty of bail. It is lastly contended that already charge sheet has been submitted and the case has been committed to the Court of Session for trial. Therefore, at this stage, the question of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners is not called for and the order impugned ought to be quashed.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant/opposite party No.2 opposed this application and submitted that this is a case, where the daughter of the de facto complainant is an acid attacked victim and this Court considering her case, was pleased to award a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation to be paid by the State. He further submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioners have suppressed the fact that earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected on merit, the learned Judge very rightly cancelled the bail.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State also opposed this application and submitted that the learned court below very rightly cancelled the anticipatory bail of the petitioners for the reason that they got the bail suppressing the facts that earlier their application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and considered their respective submissions.
Indisputably, the petitioners obtained the anticipatory bail by suppressing the fact that earlier their prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the self-same court on merits. Therefore, the learned Judge very 3 rightly cancelled their bail and there was no impropriety or illegality in the order so passed.
However, a question certainly arises for consideration, whether the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners in the month of October, 2012, would serve ends of justice, if cancelled in August, 2014, when already charge sheet has been submitted and the case has been committed for trial.
This Court has been informed that 28th August, 2014 has been fixed for appearance of the petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas, where the case has been committed for trial.
Now, in the above background, when the case has already been matured for trial and the petitioners were enlarged on bail for a considerable period, in my opinion, instead of cancelling the bail of the petitioners and taking them into custody, if the speedy trial be ensured, that shall subserve the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the order of cancellation of bail, is set aside. It is directed that the petitioners shall by day after tomorrow, surrender before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas and on their such surrender, they shall be released on fresh bail upon execution of a bond of Rs.40,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, one of whom must be local and on further condition that after release, they shall report to the concerned Police Station once in every week until the trial is concluded.
It is further directed that they must always be present in the trial court on each and every date of trial and if found absent on any date without any justifiable reason, then in that case, the trial court shall have the liberty to cancel their bail and take them into 4 custody without any further reference to this Court. The trial court is directed that on 28th August, 2014, the date fixed for appearance of the accused persons, shall fix the date for consideration of the question of framing of charge and such date must not be fixed beyond a period of one week and if charge is finally framed, then immediately after the framing of charge, as a special case, the trial must be commenced within a fortnight and all endeavours must be made to conclude the trial within a month from the re-opening of the trial court after puja vacation. The trial must be proceeded strictly in terms of the provision of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on day to day basis.
Let this order be communicated to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Diamond Harbour, Sourt 24-Parganas as well as to the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, at once by special messenger at the cost of the petitioner to be deposited in course of today.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties in course of this day.
( Ashim Kumar Roy, J. ) 5 6