The main legal point established is that the grounds for granting and cancelling bail should consider the seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, and likelihood of interference with justice.

JUDGMENT

Bibhas Ranjan De, J . - The genesis of the case began with First Information Report (for short 'FIR') which was lodged by one Sunanda Das (Petitioner of CRM 7296 of 2021) with Mongalkote Police Station on 12.07.2021 alleging murder of his father (asim Das) leading to Registration of the case as Mongalkote Police Station Case no. 143 of 2021 dated 12.07.2021 under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short I.P.C) 1860 read with Section 25/27 of the arms act 1959 corresponding to G.R case no. 618/2021.

2. It is alleged that C.I.D West Bengal, took up investigation of the case and during investigation prima facie it has been revealed that opposite parties, four (4) accused, cooked up a conspiracy to kill the deceased father of the complainant and got it done by one Obaidur Rahaman @ Suraj, hired killer, who fired the fatal gun-shot at asim Das on 12.07.2021. accordingly, C.I.D West Bengal arrested said opposite parties and submitted charge sheet being no. 190 of 2021 dated 07.10.2021under Section 302/120B/473/34 of the IPC against nine (9) accused persons including four opposite parties, after completion of investigation.

3. Ld. Vacation Judge, Purba Bardhaman, granted bail to all four opposite parties on 26.10.2021 vide three criminal Misc. case nos. 2182/2021, 2185/2021 and 2193/2021 after perusal of case diary and after hearing both sides holding inter alia that investigation was completed by submitting charge sheet and accused were in custody for considerable period. Ld. Judge granted bail to all four opposite parties on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each and also on condition to report to the C.I.D once in a week keeping an eye to the apprehension of any threat to the witness.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders dated 26.10.2021 passed by Ld. Vacation Judge, defacto complainant has filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') being CRM no. 7296 of 2021 against all four (4) accused (private opposite parties) granted bail by the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Ld. Vacation Judge, Purba Bardhaman, and the state has also filed a petition under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C against same four (4) accused (private opposite parties) for cancellation of bail being C.R.M no. 8660 of 2021.

5. On behalf of the petitioner in C.R.M no. 7296 of 2021, Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Ld. Senior advocate, referred to the decisions reported in the cases as mentioned below:

5.1 anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2018) 12 SCC 129

5.2 Subodh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 14 SCC 638

5.3 Puran Vs. Rambilas and another with Sekhar and another Vs. State of Maharasthra and another (2001) 6 SCC 338

5.4 Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002) Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (SC) 533

6. Mr. Basu contended that the Ld. Vacation Judge granted bail to the opposite parties on the ground of period of detention and submission of charge sheet ignoring the 'severity of the offence', statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, identification of the accused in the Test Identification Parade, and the call records of mobile phones showing conversation among the opposite parties at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, according to Mr. Basu, the order of bail granted in favour of the opposite parties should be cancelled by setting aside the order dated 26.10.2021.

7. In C.R.M no. 8660 of 2021 Ld. additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State/ Petitioner supporting the argument advanced by Mr. Basu contended inter alia that Ld. Vacation Judge did not adhere to the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as identification of the accused in Test Identification Parade and came to an erroneous finding by granting bail to the accused.

8. Ld. advocates Mr. Imtiaz ahmed, Mr. ali Hasan alamgir and Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay on behalf of the opposite parties, have dra