Back
2012 Supreme(Cal) 67
High Court Of Calcutta
Kanchan Chakraborty, J.
Biswanath Tewary – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
C.R.R.1868 of 2006 With C.R.A.N.2736 of 2011
Decided on : Jan 19, 2012
Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay, Ankita Das Chakraborty, Amarta Ghosh
There is no provision in the Code to discharge an accused who is arrested, granted bail, and examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. in connection with a summons case.
Headnote:
Railway Act - Revisional Application - The court upheld the order rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for discharging them from the case, stating that there is no provision in the Code to discharge an accused who is arrested, granted bail, and examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. in connection with a summons case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with a rail roko agitation and were examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. The petitioners challenged the order rejecting their prayer for discharge from the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there is no provision in the Code to discharge an accused who is arrested, granted bail, and examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. in connection with a summons case. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the matter at the earliest possibility.
Issues: Challenge to order rejecting prayer for discharge from the case under the Railway Act.
Ratio Decidendi: No provision in the Code to discharge an accused who is arrested, granted bail, and examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. in connection with a summons case.
Final Decision: The revisional application was disposed of, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest possibility.
1. SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed in Court today be kept on record.
2. THIS revisional application is taken up for hearing together with the application being C.R.A.N.1868 of 2006 in view of the order dated 17.1.2012.
3. THE challenge in this revisional application is to the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur in connection with R.P.F. Case No.51 of 2005 dated 13th June, 2005 under Section 145 (b)/146/147/174 of the Railway Act whereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for discharging them from the case.
4. HEARD Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Heard Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
5. UPON a demand of permanent railway crossing at Adra on 12.6.2005, the local persons of that area stopped movements of up and down trains. As a result, a chaotic situation was created. Even on the assurance of the railway authorities, the rail roko agitation was continued and in course of rail roko movement, some untowards activities had taken place. In course of enquiry, the police could arrest the petitioners although at the time of lodging the F.I.R., no name of any persons was mentioned.
6. THE learned Magistrate granted bail to the petitioners and thereafter by the impugned order examined them under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. on 30.3.2006. The petitioners have come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order.
7. I do not find any substance in the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The offences alleged are summons triable and Section 239 of the Code which is coming within the Chapter XIX of the Code, is not applicable in summons procedure case. There is no provision in the Code to discharge an accused who is arrested, granted bail and examined under Section 251 of the Cr. P. C. in connection with summons case. Therefore, the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal, in valid and cannot be said to have been suffering from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The order is not required to be upset.
8. HOWEVER, the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as earliest possibility preferably within two months hence. The persons are also directed to co-operate the Court in the matter of disposal of the case as early as possible.
9. XEROX plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsels for the parties so that it can be placed before the learned Trial Court who is directed to act on the same in order to avoid delay.
10. THE revisional application is, thus, disposed of. In view of the above, no order is required to be passed in the application being C.R.A.N.2736 of 2011. The same is also disposed of.
