Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
NADIRA PATHERYA, INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, JJ.
Mani Prasad Singh - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
C.R.M. No. 12213 of 2015, CRAN 10 of 2016
Decided on :12-04-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, Mr. Narendra Prasad Gupta, Mr. Anupam Bhattacharya, Mr. Somnath Nasker, Mr. Syed Arif Ahmed, Mr. Angshuman Patra.
For the State : Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sudipta Maitra, Sr. Counsel, Mr. M.M. Verma, Mr. Swapan Mallick, Mr. Anupam Mukherjee, Mr. Biplob Das, Mr. Vijay Verma.
The grounds on which bail can be cancelled are: (i) where the order granting bail did not consider the evidence and material on record, (ii) where the accused had misconducted himself post grant of bail, or (iii) new facts and circumstances have arisen.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - CANCELLATION OF BAIL - GROUNDS - SUPPRESSION OF FACTS - NEW ADVERSE FACTS - MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS - POST-BAIL CONDUCT - SUPERVENING CIRCUMSTANCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 438(2) CR.P.C. - VICTIM UNDER SECTION 2(WA) CR.P.C. - INJURY UNDER SECTION 44 I.P.C. - LOCUS STANDI TO FILE APPLICATION - DUTY OF PROSECUTION TO PLACE MATERIALS BEFORE COURT - COGENT AND OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no.2 on the ground that the said order was obtained by suppression of facts. The petitioner is a victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. who has suffered injury under Section 44 I.P.C. and is entitled to maintain this application.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner has the locus standi to file this application. The grounds on which bail can be cancelled are: (i) where the order granting bail did not consider the evidence and material on record, (ii) where the accused had misconducted himself post grant of bail, or (iii) new facts and circumstances have arisen.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to file this application? 2. Whether the grounds on which bail can be cancelled are satisfied in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioner is a victim under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. who has suffered injury under Section 44 I.P.C. and is entitled to maintain this application. 2. The grounds on which bail can be cancelled are: (i) where the order granting bail did not consider the evidence and material on record, (ii) where the accused had misconducted himself post grant of bail, or (iii) new facts and circumstances have arisen. In the present case, none of these grounds are satisfied.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application for cancellation of bail.
NADIRA PATHERYA, J.
By this application the petitioner seeks to cancel the bail granted to the opposite party no.2 by order dated 22nd December, 2015 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 8794 of 2015 filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. arising out of Cossipore Police Station Case No. 88 dated 15th April, 2015 filed under Sections 148/149/326/307/427 I.P.C. read with Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 25(i)(b)/27 Arms Act, on the ground that the said order was obtained by suppression of facts.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the date of incident is 15th April, 2015 when the opposite party no.2 and his associates attacked the gate of the petitioner's house, broke the plastic chairs and soda making machines and threatened the petitioner's family members. Although telephonic information was given to the Officer-in-Charge of the Cossipore Police Station and to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North and North Suburban Division, Kolkata, no step was taken by them. The only reason for creating an atmosphere of terror in the said Cossipore area by the opposite party no.2 and his associates was to discourage the people of the area from coming out of the house to vote on the date of general election in the Kolkata Municipal area on 18th April, 2015. The opposite party no.2 and his associates attacked the house of the petitioner and also hurled bombs and fired bullets. Some persons suffered bullet injury and were admitted to the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. The said incident was reported in the Telegraph on 16th April, 2015. As no step was taken by the police authorities W.P.8574 (W) of 2015 and W.P.476 (W) of 2016 were filed. Cossipore P.S. Case No. 88 dated 15th April, 2015 and Cossipore P.S. Case No. 89 dated 17th April, 2015 were also filed. A warrant of arrest was also issued against the opposite party no.2. The said warrant of arrest was not executed as the opposite party no.2 and his associates are influential people in the said Cossipore area as a result whereof the next process, namely, W/P/A has been issued.
3. An application was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Alipore on 14th August, 2015 to which the petitioner as a victim submitted a written objection. The said application was rejected as not moved on 27th August, 2015. A second application was filed on 29th September, 2015 and was rejected as none appeared to move it on 28th October, 2015. In the second application there was no mention of the change in circumstance since the rejection of the first application. A third application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed on 31st October, 2015 suppressing the fact of rejection of the earlier two applications with no change in circumstance. By non-disclosure the opposite party no.2 suppressed facts and practiced fraud on Court. A written objection was also given by the petitioner to the said third application. On 12th October, 2015 at about 11 a.m. some persons threatened the petitioner with dire consequences in the event the written objection was not withdrawn. Thereafter, on 24th October, 2015, i.e., before the second application was rejected for non-appearance some suspected persons came to the petitioner's house when he was out of station and hurled bombs which resulted in damage to the petitioner's house. It is because of the written objection filed by the petitioner that the opposite party has sought to terrorize the petitioner and his family members. A complaint was sent to the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, Registrar (Administration), High Court, Calcutta and District and Sessions Judge, Alipore through speed post on 29th September, 2015. CRR 3746 of 2015 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of CMC Case No. 8794 of 2015 from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Alipore to the City Sessions Judge, Calcutta. The written objection along with the order passed in CRR 3746 of 2015 was placed bef
