Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application Under Section 401 Read ... vs Unknown on 29 September, 2016
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
29.09.2016
Item No. 165
sdas
C.R.R. No. 3306 of 2016
In the matter of : An application under Section 401 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In Re : Narottam Mandal @ Khokan @ Norottam Mandal .....petitioner
Mr. Shekhar Barman
....... for the petitioner
Order dated 11.08.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at
South 24 Parganas cancelling the anticipatory bail of the petitioner in
connection with Kulpi Police Station Case No. 321 of 2014 dated
28.05.2014under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of suppression of material fact that his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected earlier has been assailed.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had disclosed the earlier rejection of his prayer for anticipatory bail in the subsequent application which was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore while cancelling his anticipatory bail.
I have perused the materials on record. Paragraph 5 of the said application reads as follows :
2
"5. That again on 11.03.15 opposite party on the basis of same ground filed a petition U/S 438 Cr.P.C. Which was registered as Cr.M.C. No. 1935/15 and on 20.03.15 the instant application was fixed for hearing and called for case Diary. On 9.03.15 after hearing the parties and perusing case diary Ld. Court was pleased to allow the prayer for Bail of the opposite party. Wherein the opposite by supporting affidavit gave a statement that no such application for bail U/S 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed or rejected by this court."
No doubt that the prayer for rejection of the earlier application for anticipatory bail is stated in the subsequent application for anticipatory bail but there is nothing placed on record to show what was the change of circumstance which prompted the petitioner to file the second application for anticipatory bail on the very next date after rejection of his earlier prayer for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner without applying mind to the aforesaid factum of rejection of his earlier prayer for anticipatory bail and without change of any circumstance since then was wholly unwarranted and was rightly cancelled by the learned Court below.
With this aforesaid observation, the application is dismissed.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)