Bail orders should not be cancelled based on hyper-technical grounds in the absence of compelling circumstances, especially when prior judicial decisions affirmed bail rights.

ORDER :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Kunal Mimani, learned counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal, accepts notice on advance service. Mr. Rohit Dutta, learned counsel, appears via video conferencing on behalf of respondent No.2¹[Hereinafter, referred to as the “respondent No.2-complainant”.] on caveat.

4. Leave granted.

5. Facts involved in the present appeal manifest a remarkably perverse exercise of revisional jurisdiction by learned Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta²[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] who has, in a revision filed at the instance of the respondent No.2-complainant, set aside the order granting bail to the accused-appellant³[Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant” or “accused”.] herein in a case involving offences triable by Court of Magistrate after a gap of nearly 8 years on absolutely hyper technical and untenable reasons.

6. The dispute between the appellant and respondent No.2-complainant is with regard to tenancy rights over a portion of a building, which was purchased by the appellant from its erstwhile owner. Respondent No.2-complainant instituted a civil suit against the appellant, being Title Suit No.328 of 2016, seeking declaration of her tenancy in respect of a room admeasuring approximately 150 sq. ft.

7. On 15th September, 2017, in the proceedings of the civil suit, the respondent No.2-complainant entered the witness box and deposed that the disputes between the parties had been amicably settled and, in view thereof, she did not wish to proceed with the said suit. The Court, taking note of the said statement, recorded that the dispute stood settled between the parties and dismissed the suit by an order of the even date. Concealing the factum of the aforesaid civil proceedings and the settlement, the respondent No.2-complainant filed a complaint on 28th November, 2017 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate⁴[Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘‘Magistrate”.], Sealdah, who in turn, by order dated 28th November, 2017 exercised powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure⁵[For short, ‘CrPC’.] and forwarded the said complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Cossipore Police Station, for investigation, leading to the registration of FIR No.257 dated 8th December, 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 409 , 417, 418, 419, 420, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁶[For short, ‘ IPC ’.].

8. The appellant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case and was produced before the Magistrate concerned on 3rd May, 2018. His initial prayer for bail came to be rejected on the same day. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate granted interim bail to the appellant on 7th May, 2018, which was thereafter confirmed by the learned Magistrate on 4th July, 2018. The complainant challenged the order granting interim bail to the appellant by filing Criminal Revision No.1248 of 2018 before the High Court.

9. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said revision by the impugned order dated 6th March, 2026, holding that the Magistrate had acted contrary to Rule 183 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985, and that there was an infirmity in the order of the learned Magistrate, which only bore his initials and lacked proper authentication. The High Court, accordingly, set aside the order granting interim bail as well as the sub