Smti Biva Rani Dey @ Biva Dey vs The State Of Assam on 8 January, 2021

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Smti Biva Rani Dey @ Biva Dey vs The State Of Assam on 8 January, 2021

The present petitioner Smti. Biva Rani Dey @ Biva Dey has been arrayed as one of the accused in the charge sheet, filed in Manja P.S. Case No.60/2012 (corresponding to G.R. Case No.791/2012), which has been charge sheeted and now pending before the learned CJM, Karbi Anglong at Diphu.

The accused/petitioner was granted bail at the stage of investigation as on 09.12.2014 and the bail Page No.# 2/3 bond was accepted on 10.12.2014. Subsequently the charge sheet was submitted on 30.12.2014.

After receipt of the charge sheet, the Court has issued summons to the accused persons and one of the accused, who appeared before the learned trial Court after receipt of the summons, with a prayer to remain on previous bail, was rejected by the learned trial Court, with a view that the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 5/5A of the Financial Establishments Act, in addition to other Sections of law, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

The petitioner also made a prayer seeking time for appearance before the learned trial Court, which has been rejected and had issued NBWA, by the order dated 14.02.2020. Apprehensive of arrest, now the petitioner has come forward by filing this petition under Section 438 of the CrPC, seeking pre- arrest bail.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. NJ Dutta, appearing for the State respondent and also gone through the documents annexed.

It is to be noted that although the case was initially registered under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC, read with Sections 3/4/5 of the Money Circulation (Banning) Act, subsequently Section 5/5A of the Financial Establishments Act, 2003 was also added. This indicates that such a section was added during the course of investigation and not at the time of filing of the charge sheet, whereas the petitioner was granted bail after addition of such section, during the course of the trial.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was granted the privilege of bail by the learned trial Court during the Course of investigation and the bail bond was also accepted by the Court. That being so, unless the bail order is cancelled, the said bail bond will remain valid till the conclusion of trial. Only because one of the Section is triable by the Court of Sessions, rejection of the prayer for remain on previous bail is not sustainable in law, as has been done in case of one of the co-accused.

The petitioner is apprehended by the bail rejection order, so passed by the learned CJM, Karbi Anglong at Diphu.

The bail is to ensure the attendance of an accused in the criminal proceeding and whenever the accused, who has been granted bail by the Court of law, unless cancelled by a competent higher Court, the same remain valid till the end of the proceeding. Only because the charge sheet has been submitted, indicating the sessions triable offence, does not itself indicate that the bail earlier granted got cancelled.

The learned Addl. P.P., Assam has also conceded to the aforesaid proposition of law that once the bail Page No.# 3/3 is granted, it will prevail till the end of the trial.

Considering all entirety, it can be held that granting of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner, as sought for, is of no consequence. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned CJM, Karbi Anglong at Diphu within 10 (ten) days from today, with a petition seeking to remain on previous bail and the learned Court will allow the same, to accommodate her to face the trial.

Till then the execution of the NBWA, issued against her, is hereby stayed.

The bail petition stands disposed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gauhati High Court