IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cancellation of bail – Concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from concept of cancelling bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some subsequent new facts necessitating for cancellation of bail.
(2) Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

JUDGMENT

This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-opposite party No.2 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Contai vide its order dated 20th July, 2024.

2. On 29th May 2024, the mother of the victim girl lodged a written complaint before Inspector-in-charge, Egra Police Station against accused-opposite party no.2 alleging of sexual exploitation of her minor daughter aged about 14 years and of commission of serious offences under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’). On the basis of such complaint, FIR was registered as Egra P.S. case no. 340 of 2024 dated 29th May 2024 under section 376 (3) of India Penal Code (in short ‘IPC) and section 6 of POCSO Act. The accused-opposite party No.2 filed an application seeking anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Case No. 127 of 2024 under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr. P.C.), which was rejected by the learned trial court on 21st June 2024. Subsequent thereto, on 26th June 2024 the accused-opposite party No.2 surrendered and prayed for bail before the learned trial court. Such prayer for bail was fixed for hearing and consideration on 10th July 2024, upon information to the de facto complainant. On the said date upon considering the available materials, the bail prayer of the accused-opposite party No.2 was rejected. Thereafter, on 16th July 2024, chargesheet was submitted against the accused-opposite party No.2 vide CS No.376 of 2024. On 20th July 2024, copies were supplied to the accused under section 207 of Cr. P.C. and prayer for bail of accused-opposite party No.2 was allowed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order granting bail to the accused-opposite party No.2, the petitioner being the de facto complainant has filed the present application seeking cancellation of bail.

3. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned Senior advocate along with Mr. Anirban Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused-opposite party No.2 was working as a civic volunteer in the said police station, however, surprisingly he was not arrested by the investigating agency upon initiation of FIR. On 21st June 2024, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the learned trial court rejected the prayer of the accused seeking anticipatory bail. Upon surrender before the trial court, the accused sought for regular bail, which was also rejected by the learned trial court taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the stage of investigation. On 16th July 2024, a chargesheet was filed with extraordinary haste within 48 days of registration of the FIR, though several aspects of investigation remained incomplete, including non-seizure of mobile phone of the accused and non-collection of vital medical records of the victim girl which are foundational in a criminal proceeding under POCSO Act. On 20th July 2024, the learned trial court which all along on the earlier dates rejected the prayer of the accused for bail on the ground of gravity of the offence, allowed the prayer for bail of the accused on the sole ground that chargesheet has been submitted treating such submission of chargesheet as a determinative factor for grant of bail. The accused was granted bail within 24 days from the date of his surrender in court. The petitioner-de facto complainant on the said date raised objection to such bail prayer of the petitioner and also filed an application before the learned court with the contention that the investigating agency has not collected necessary papers relating to the treatment of the victim girl and prayed for necessary order. However, without considering the objections raised and the contention of such petition, the learned trial court proceeded to grant bail to the accused-opposite party No.2 in a mechanical manner ignoring the seriousness of the o