Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1308/2012 on 14 May, 2012
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
14/05/2012 ARDR CRM 1308 of 2012 In Re: Anjali Singh (Ray) ...Petitioner (Defacto complainant).
Re : An application for cancellation of Bail under Section 439 (2) of the Cr. P.C. filed on 19/1/2012;
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Purkayastha, Ms. Amita Gaur, Mr. S. Majumder, ...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ... for the State.
Mr. Manab Kr. Gupta,
Mr. Tanmoy Roy,
Ms. Moumita Gupta,
...for the O.P. nos. 2 to 5.
Affidavit-in-Opposition and Affidavit-in-Reply are taken on record. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioners Arbind Kumar Singh, Binod @ Vinod Kumar Singh, Krishna Madhab Singh and Indra Madhab Singh in connection Barasat Police Station case no. 2121 of 2011 dated 10/11/2011 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears from the Order that was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barasat in CMC no. 8699 of 2012 that he did consider that the case had been initiated on the basis of a written complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He however, then came to the conclusion that "there is some civil disputes as it appears from the submissions of the both sides".
Having made the said observation he granted anticipatory bail. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned Senior Counsel, has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint of the complainant that was filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat.
Paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7 are the statements, which definitely go to show that there are an elements of allegations of criminality.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State has also pointed out that the suggestions and/or allegations of the elements of criminality will also be found in the Case Diary. Pages 10, 11, 16, 59 and 69 bear testimony in support of the aforementioned contention of the learned Counsel for the State.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The Sessions Judge, Barasat, who has passed the Order does not appear to have applied his mind either to the Case Diary or to the aforementioned paragraphs of the complaint which he ought to have done before making an observation that it was a civil dispute simpliciter. The statements made in paragraphs 4 to 7 are as follows:
"4. That after demise of the father of the complainant the complainant, her elder sister Smt. Rita Singh Mitra and other legal heirs did not take any initiative to partition the said properties in their name but unfortunately on 02.10.2011, in the fine morning some land brockers came to the house of the complainant and they informed that they are intending to purchase the land for development and it was also informed that the accused no.1 along with the other co-accused persons offered the said land brockers to sale out those plots of land to them within this month and the accused persons gave some xerox copies to the said land brockers showing that the accused persons are the owners of the said plots of land, the complainant came to know the said unfortunate incident from the said land brockers and also came to know that the accused persons having entered into a criminal conspiracy to each other procured some fake documents and they wilfully forged the signature of her father for their wrongful gain and as well as the wrongful loss of the complainant and other co-legal heirs.
5. That the complainant having heard the said incident went to the District Registry office, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, SDLRO, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, BLLRO, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal and enquired about the land and came to know that the landed property mentioned above had been transferred in the name of the accused persons earlier and the accused persons mutated the said property in favour of the accused persons.
It is also came to know that the signature of her father in the deed and documents was forged by the accused persons dishonestly for their wrongful gain and wrongful loss of the complainant.
6. That the accused persons forged the documents which purported a valuable security and the documents/deeds of the landed property of the father of the complainant, the accused persons conjointly and with furtherance of common intention committed forgery, intending for the purpose of cheating, actually the accused persons forged the signature of Late Kamta Prasad Singh and converted the name in the document of the scheduled property in their favour and at present they ary trying to use the said forged documents as genuine fraudulently, dishonestly intentionally to cheat the complainant and other legal heirs of Late Kamta Prosad Singh.
7. That al the forged documents are lying with the BL & LRO, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal and the District - Registry Office, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, W.B. and without police investigation and assistance there is hardly any scope to unfold the truth, the complainant having heard the entire facts and circumstances immediately diarised the matter at Barasat Police Station and the duty officer of the Police Station diarised the same in G.D. Entry No. 1332 dated 18.10.2011. The complainant also filed separate application before Distlrict-Registry office, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, SDLRO, Barasat, North 24 Parganas and the BL & LRO, Barasat (N) 24 Parganas, all the xerox copies are annexed herewith as part of this complaint."
We are, therefore, satisfied that the Order of grant of anticipatory bail passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barasat, is not only erroneous but it has been passed without any application of mind. The said Order is therefore set aside and cancelled.
This application stands allowed.
Subject to an application for certified copy being made and proof in support thereof being produced, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the learned Counsel for the parties, on usual undertaking.
(Tapen Sen, J. ) (Dipak Saha Ray, J.)