The significance of statements recorded under Section 164 and Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in considering applications for anticipatory bail cancellation.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has applied for cancellation of the orders of anticipatory bail passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. Five applications for cancellation of anticipatory bail have been heard analogously as they emanate out of the same police case.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the CBI has submitted that, CBI took over investigations of a First Information Report bearing No. 325 of 2021 dated May 3, 2021 of Sonarpur Police Station, District South 24 Parganas, pursuant to and in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated August 19, 2021 passed in a public interest litigation. He has submitted that, subsequent to the Central Bureau of Investigation taking over investigations, the Central Bureau of Investigation has come across materials which necessitated initiation of proceedings for cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the private opposite parties. He has referred to the materials in the case diary. In particular, he has referred to statements of two eye witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on July 7, 2021. He has also referred to statements of two victims of the incident. He has also referred to statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code on May 5, 2021 of the eye witness and the widow of the deceased. He has referred to statements of other eye witnesses and victims recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has contended that, CBI is now in possession of new material to implicate all of the private opposite parties. He has referred to the severity of offence and the involvements of the private opposite parties therein.

3. Learned advocate appearing for CBI has relied upon 1978 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 118 (Gurcharan Singh and Others vs. State (Delhi Admn.)) and 2001 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 338 (Puran vs. Rambilas and Another). He has contended that, the Learned Judge granting the prayer for anticipatory bail to the private opposite parties erred in doing so. The Learned Judge did not consider all the relevant materials at the time of granting the prayer for anticipatory bail. Moreover, the CBI has come across new and further incrementing materials against the private opposite parties. He has submitted that the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the private opposite parties should be cancelled.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite parties has submitted that, the present application is not maintainable. CBI had approached the Sessions Court for the purpose of cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail and that such application was rejected on January 13, 2022. Therefore, the CBI cannot reagitate the same issue before the Hon'ble Court. According to him the present application is not maintainable.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite parties has contended that none of the private opposite parties are guilty of violating any of the conditions of the anticipatory bail. The CBI has not been able to establish any such violations. Moreover, CBI has not claimed that any of the private opposite parties has violated any of the conditions of the order granting anticipatory bail.

6. Learned advocate appearing for private opposite parties has submitted that, CBI has not placed any supervening circumstances on record to require cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to his clients. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated July 23, 2021 granting anticipatory bail and contended that, the Learned Sessions Judge considered all the materials in the case diary and had come to a finding with regard to the requirement to grant the anticipatory bail to the private opposite parties. It cannot be said that the Learned Sessions Judge had exercised discretion wrongly.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite parties has submitted that, there have been two charge sheets filed in the case. Till da