Back
1994 Supreme(Cal) 298
High Court Of Calcutta
Rabin Bhattacharyya, Nure Alam Chowdhury
RENU SINGH - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 09/12/1994
ABDUL MANNAN, ALOKE ROY, ASHOK SENGUPTA, ASLAM KHAN, CHANCHAL DUTTA, CHOUDHARY DEVI LAL, DILIP DUTTA, GOURAB BANERJI, JAYASRI CHAKRAVARTY, KABITA MUKHERJI, KAZI SAFIULLA, N.GHOSH, S.K.MISHRA, S.P.TALUKDAR, SEKHAR BAG, SOUREN BOSE, SRENIK SINGHVI, Tapan Roy Chowdhury, THAKURDAS ROY CHOWDHURY
A defacto complainant has a right to file an application for cancellation of bail, and a court must properly consider the relevant materials in the case before granting anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CANCELLATION - RIGHT OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION - RELEVANCE OF MEDICAL REPORT - CONSIDERATION OF SUICIDAL DEATH - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 438, CRPC - SURRENDER OR APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED - EFFECT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 437, CRPC - INHERENT POWER OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482, CRPC - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The defacto complainant, Renu Singh, whose husband Ranjit was found dead in a pool of blood with a kripan beside him, filed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused in connection with the case. The accused had argued that the defacto complainant had no right to file such an application, and that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in granting anticipatory bail without considering the pre- and post-occurrence materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defacto complainant had a right to file an application for cancellation of bail, as she was directly affected by the alleged offence. The court also held that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to properly consider the relevant materials in the case, including the Post Mortem report which showed that the death was homicidal in nature, and had erred in granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the defacto complainant had a right to file an application for cancellation of bail. 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge had erred in granting anticipatory bail to the accused without considering the relevant materials in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defacto complainant had a right to file an application for cancellation of bail, as she was directly affected by the alleged offence. The court relied on the decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, AIR 1985 SC 1285, which held that the informant or complainant is entitled to notice before the Magistrate drops a proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, and that such person can appear before the Magistrate and make submissions when the report is considered by the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding what action he should take on the report. 2. The court held that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in granting anticipatory bail to the accused without considering the relevant materials in the case, including the Post Mortem report which showed that the death was homicidal in nature. The court held that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to take into account the fact that the Singh's family had been lashed by an unfavourable blow of wind which led to a turmoil, and that the situation was tense and unhappy. The court also held that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in considering the alleged suicidal death of the deceased as a ground for granting anticipatory bail, as the Post Mortem report did not support such a conclusion.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the accused, and directed the learned Sessions Judge to hear the application for anticipatory bail afresh within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.
( 1 ) THE defacto complainant Renu Singh, the wife of the deceased Ranjit, has come up before this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail dated 18. 8. 1994, granted by the learned Sessions Judge in charge, North 24-Parganas,in Criminal Misc Case No. 2274, in connection with Rajarhat Police Station Case No. 144 dated 7. 7. 1994, initially started under section 306/34 of the IPC. But, subsequently a further section was added viz. section 302 of the IPC for the Post Mortem report disclosing the death of Ranjit, a homicide.
( 2 ) HOWEVER, to appreciate the viability of the claim, a brief resume of the facts is essential. The facts :
( 3 ) ONE. Mohon Singh, since deceased, acquired substantial properties which included amongst others the factory and the landed properties. On his heath, the properties left behind him devolved on his legal heirs. The death of Mohon dealt a death blow to the peace and happiness in the Singh's family for the dispute and dissension broke out amongst the members of the family over the control, possession and ownership of the properties left behind by Mohon, the deceased. '
( 4 ) THOUGH the forensic battle commenced for acquisition of ownership, yet the dispute ended in a compromise on certain terms. There was again revival of the dispute when the condition of the amicable settlement was repudiated by the opposite parties by the reason their failure to honour the payment over which much altercation ensued preceding the date of occurrence. Ranjit, the deceased, forced his entry into the flat in "pull man Complex" where he stayed on 6. 7. 94 along with his friend but in a different flat.
( 5 ) IN the morning following, Renu along with other family members broke open the door of the said flat and found Ranjit lying in a pool of blood in a bathroom with kripan beside him. Ranjit succumbed to his injuries when a case on the basis of the complaint of Reno disclosing the death a suicide was reported which generated the above noted P. S. case.
( 6 ) IN the meantime, the opposite parties preferred an application for anticipatory bail, the hearing of which was adjourned to 18. 8. 94 admitting the opposite parties to an interim anticipatory bail. It was finally disposed of, as directed by the Hon'ble Court, which, has now became the sore of this litigation.
( 7 ) TO contradict the claim, none of the opposite parties has put in any affidavit-in-opposition.
( 8 ) WE have been addressed by the parties at length for and against the impugned order which we will discuss threadbare in our order.
( 9 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury appearing to canvass the prayer for cancellation of bail has dexterously argued that the defacto complainant can very well present an application for cancellation of bail, since there is no bar under the law.
( 10 ) MR. Dutta and Mr. Sen are sought to have refuted the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the defacto complainant is devoid of right to prefer an application for cancellation of bail as the matter is confined between the State on one hand and the accused on the other.
( 11 ) WE cannot accept the contention to be water and air tight as neither Mr. Dutta nor Mr. Sen by application or otherwise challenged the decision of the learned Sessions Judge in charge on that count. After careful consideration of the position of law, we are of the view, the defacto complainant is clothed with right to put up a claim for cancellation of bail when craving for justice. We can draw an analogy in support for the principle of law laid down in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, AIR 1985 SC 1285, where the Court held :"in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) of section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the inf
