The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR, the violation of notice under Section 41A, and the suspicious timing of events raised questions about the motives behind the proceedings. The court also found that the investigation was being conducted casually and ineffectively by the IO and the State Police. As a result, the court ordered the transfer of the case to the CBI and stayed the investigation by the State Police.

ORDER :

1. On the 12th of July, 2021, Haldia Police Station Case No. 80 of 2021 under Sections 341, 384, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The principal accused in the said F.I.R. is one Shyamal Adak. The writ petitioner Rajib Paul was a co-accused. The complainant Sk. Mobarak Ali, had stated that sometime in the year 2018, the said Shyamal Adak use to collect by extortion a sum of Rs. 100 per truck to allow loading of coal at the Haldia Dock Complex. The payment was received and recorded in a slip issued by the said Shyamal Adak and his associates inside the trade union office of the dock complex. On one such instance, the petitioner failed and refused to make payment, following which he was not allowed to load his truck with coal. The Petitioner was allowed to load his truck only after forking out of the said sum of Rs. 100. Due the pressure and intimidation by the said Shyamal Adak and his associates, the consignees stopped hiring the complainant which crippled his transport business.

2. The F.I.R. was registered at 10.35 pm, about 2 and half years after the incident. The date of occurrence is not mentioned. The writ petitioner applied for bail before the Magistrate and the same was allowed on the 19th of July, 2021. Ex-facie appears to this Court that the said order granting bail was passed in a slipshod manner even without consulting with the case diary.

3. On 28th of July, 2021, the Investigation Officer (IO) applied for cancellation of bail stating that the petitioner was threatening witnesses. The Magistrate recorded in detail the omissions of the IO, inter alia, in not issuing notice under Section 41A of the CrPC. It was also found that the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC did not indicate any such threat or intimidation. Prayer for recording statements under Section 164 was not made, which has also been recorded. The Magistrate strangely however went on to find that the petitioner was guilty of threatening such witnesses. Hence, the petitioner's bail was cancelled on the 28th of July, 2021. The order of the Magistrate is set out herein below :-

"Ld. Advocate on behalf of the accused moved this application praying for time and adjournment of the hearing.

The ground shown in his application is found irrelevant and thus the prayer for time of the hearing of the application is rejected.

Now, the record is taken up for hearing of the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution praying for cancellation of bail of accused namely Rajib Pal.

Heard Ld. APP at length.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the accused person.

The I/O is present before this Court in person along with the C.D.

The main contention of the I/O's prayer for cancellation of bail if as follows:-

(1) Accused Rajib Pal is still continuing variety crimes in updating manner.

(2) That, after getting bail from this Court, the accused person threatened the witnesses and the complainant as well for which the matter has been entered in the G.D.E. vide Haldia P.S. G.D.E. No. 843 dated 22/07/2021 and 907 dated 23/07/2021;

(3) The accused is intentionally violating condition of bail. There is also another point highlighted by the I.O that during the hearing of bail petition of the accused person, the case diary, the seizure list and other valuable documents have bot been called for by this Court to understand the link between the accused and the commencement of the crime. The I/O has mentioned that enlarging the accused on bail has affected the entire investigation.

Surprisingly, stating above points the I/O in his prayer portion made prayer for revocation of bail permission granted to Rajib Pal.

During hearing, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the accused referred judgment reported in 1991 CriLJ 1422 and submitted that mere on the basis of lodging diary by the de facto complainant and witness bail granted to the accused cannot be cancelled. It is submitted further by Ld. Advocate that the accused person has extended his cooperation till date as