Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 752
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY, J.
UTC Management Pvt. Ltd
C.R.M. No. 5261 of 2011
Decided On : 13-08-2012
For the Appearing Parties:Sekhar Basu, Sourav Chatterjee, Sandip Chakraborty, Milon Mukherjee, Imtiaj Ahmed, Pankaj Singh, Advocates.
The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the accused's age, illness, cooperation in the investigation, and lack of post-bail misconduct when deciding whether to grant or cancel bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - CANCELLATION - SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. - Bail granted to accused by Magistrate - Application by victim for cancellation of bail - Bail granted after considering age, illness, and cooperation of accused in investigation - No allegation of post-bail misconduct - Cancellation of bail not warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a victim of alleged cheating, filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to the accused by the Magistrate. The accused was arrested and remanded to police custody for 9 days. The Magistrate rejected the accused's bail application twice but granted bail on the third occasion, considering his age, illness, and cooperation in the investigation. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the amount of money involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had considered the nature and gravity of the offense when denying bail on two previous occasions. The court also noted that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and that there was no allegation of post-bail misconduct. The court held that the Magistrate had assigned sufficient reasons for granting bail and that cancellation of bail was not warranted.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in granting bail to the accused without considering the gravity of the offense and the amount of money involved? 2. Whether the accused's cooperation with the investigation and lack of post-bail misconduct were sufficient grounds for granting bail?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate had considered the nature and gravity of the offense when denying bail on two previous occasions. The court also noted that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and that there was no allegation of post-bail misconduct. The court held that the Magistrate had assigned sufficient reasons for granting bail and that cancellation of bail was not warranted.
Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's application for cancellation of bail.
This application under Section 439(2) of the Cr. P. C. has been filed by U.T.C. Management Pvt. Ltd. praying for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party No.2 Somnath Mukherjee on 8.6.2011 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24Paraganas, South at Alipore in connection with Chetla Police Station Case No.120 of 2010 dated 9.11.2010.
2. The petitioner filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-paraganas, South, Alipore on 12.10.2010 against the opposite party No.2, Somnath Mukherjee andone Arif Bashir Iqbal for prosecuting them under Section 406/419/420/468/471/120B of the I.P.C. The said petition of complaint was sent to the local Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. P. C. by the learned Magistrate and accordingly, Chetla Police Station Case No.120 of 2010 dated 9.11.2010 was startedunder the abovementioned sections against the two accused personsincluding the opposite party No.2.
3. The opposite party no.2 was arrested by the investigating agency and produced before the learned Magistrate on 31.5.2011. On the prayer of the I.O. of the case, he was remanded to police custodyinitially till 4.6.2011 and thereafter by another order till 8.6.2011.On 8.6.2011, the opposite party No.2 was produced before thelearned Magistrate from the police custody by the Investigating Officer who also made a prayer for his police remand till 13.6.2011. The learned granted bail to the opposite party no.2 on 8.6.2011. That order dated 8.6.2011 is the subject matter of this applicationwhereby the petitioner U.T.C. Management Pvt. Ltd. has sought for cancellation mainly on the following grounds;
a) that the learned Magistrate failed to apply its judicial mind and passed the order mechanically;
b) that the learned Magistrate was oblivious of its earlier orders and grounds mentioned therein while granting police remand, but suddenly found that the opposite party no.2 being an old ailing person should be granted bail;
c) that the learned Magistrate was swayed by the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor who did not oppose the bail rather made some “frank” submissions;
d) that the order passed by the learned Magistrate has caused extreme prejudice to the petitioner who has been blatantly cheated by the opposite party no.2;
e) that the opposite party no.2 failed to comply with the conditions of bail, i.e., meeting the I.O. thrice in a week until further order;
f) that the opposite party no.2 after being enlarged on bail, threatening the Chairman and Managing Director of the U.T.C. Management Pvt. Ltd. over phone with dire consequences.
4. Heard Mr. Basu and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsels for the petitioner. Heard Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the opposite party/State of West Bengal. Perused the C.D. meticulously.
5. The case, as it appears, was initiated by the petitioner putting some direct allegations and aspersions against the opposite party no.2 and the co-accused who allegedly induced the petitioner company to enter into an agreement dated 24.7.2010 for supplying Iron Ore Fines at the go down situated at High Road, Haldia at the rate of Rs.410/-per M.T. The opposite party no.2 and the co-accused made false representation that they belonged to India Mines & Minerals, prepared and manufactured documents to establish their claim and to induce the petitioner company. The petitioner company transferred a sum of Rs.16,40,000/-in the bank account of India Mines and Minerals basing on the agreement dated 24.7.2010. But no such iron ore fines were supplied and ultimately, it was disclosed that the opposite party no.2 and the co-accused had no connection with India Mines and Minerals and the petitioner was defrauded.
6. The opposite party no.2 was brought under arrest on the strength of warrant of arrest on 31.5.2011. The Investigating Officer of the case prayed for police custody of the opposite party no.2, S
