(1.) Playing the role of a Santa Claus, Shri Madhusudan Datta, learned Vacation Judge of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Misc. Case No. 504 of 2008 showered all the bounties which were available within the ambit of section 439 Cr. PC.

(2.) Necessarily rerversing the order passed by Smt. Madhumita Roy, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 2632 of 2008 whereby she took each of the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 into Custody by her order dated 30.09.2008, when the said opposite parties submitted themselves before her on 30.09.2008.

(3.) Elder sibling of Rizwanur Rahman, whose unnatural death haunts the sceptre, Shri Rukbanur Rahman has come up before this Court invoking its jurisdiction under subsection (2) of section 439 Cr. PC since he felt that the Order passed by the learned Vacation Judge was not a just decision and the same was passed upon non-consideration of the material facts and was not legally sustainable.

(4.) At the Bar, Shri Kalyan Bandopadhyay, the learned Senior Advocate (with Shri Rajdeep Majumder) addressed us at length.

(5.) Shri Bandopadhyay after placing the Order impugned submitted that the very basis of the same was wrong. According to the learned Senior Counsel, who quoted from the last paragraph of the said Order showed that the concerned opposite parties were directed to find interim bail.

(6.) Learned Senior Counsel invited our attention to the foregoing paragraphs of the said portion of the Order and showed that the application was disposed of and it was a final order.

(7.) Firstly, learned Senior Counsel submitted in the event the learned Vacation Judge had granted interim bail, he should have fixed a particular period for which the opposite parties would remain on bail; secondly by way of granting interim bail he had disposed of the application, which necessarily, meant that the interim bail was of permanent in nature.

(8.) According to Shri Bandopadhyay, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after accepting the Custody of the concerned opposite parties remanded them to Custody by her Order dated 30.09.2008. On the very next day, i.e. on 01.10.2008 what was the emergent situation that the learned Vacation Judge, by passing all norms and practices considered the prayer for bail in the absence of the Case Diary and formal Notice being served on the parties.

(9.) Next, he submitted that there was absolute non-application of mind by the learned Vacation Judge in allowing the prayer for bail without considering the materials-on-record and Shri Bandopadhyay was very much peeved with the finding of the learned Vacation Judge ".......I find nothing to show that if the accused petitioners be enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.............."

(10.) According to the learned Senior Counsel without having the entire record before him, the learned Vacation Judge ought not to have come to such a conclusion and abruptly passed an order in favour of the concerned respondents in such hot haste.

(11.) A copy of the Order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta was also placed before us on behalf of the petitioner. It was reflected therein that on the strength of a petition filed under section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the case records of G.R. Case No.2632 of 2008 was called for from the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta for the purpose of staying the Order of rejection of bail passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(12.) However, we find that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after having called for the record and having heard the submissions made at the Bar , refused to stay the operation of the order rejecting the prayer for bail as passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fourteenth Court, Calcutta.

(13.) Shri Bandopadhyay, as a part of his submission relied on the decision of Puran vs. Rambilas and Anr., 20