The court emphasized the importance of considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the prima facie involvement of the accused, and the false submission of ageing and ailment in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

1. State has filed this application for cancellation of anticipatory bail and consequential order of regular bail granted to the opposite party Prokash Mondal @ Bubai.

2. By order dated 10.10.2018 in Crl. Misc. Case No.5756 of 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South 24-Paraganas Alipore the said court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that he was an aged and ailing person and that investigation of the case is complete.

3. Mr. Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party before the learned Court that he was an aged person is contrary to the materials on record. In fact, in the affidavit accompanying the application for anticipatory bail, the opposite party is stated to be aged about 28 years. Ailment of the opposite party is also not serious and does not justify the grant of anticipatory bail in view of the gravity of the offence. It is further argued gravity of the offence and the prima facie involvement of an accused are relevant considerations which were wholly ignored by the learned Sessions Judge while granting pre arrest bail. He accordingly prays the order of pre arrest bail as well as the consequential order of regular bail be cancelled.

4. Mr. Keshri, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party/accused submits his client was barely 20 years old at the time of occurrence. He is suffering from arachnoid cyst anterior to left temporal region and is under treatment. He however was unable to explain why it was submitted before the Sessions Judge on behalf of his client that he is an aged person. It is further contended he has regularly attended the trial proceedings which have substantially progressed. Hence, prayer for cancellation of bail may be refused.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the opposite party, we called upon the State to submit report with regard to the status of the trial. From the report and the annexures thereto, we note six prosecution witnesses have been examined as yet. P.W.1, Rakhi Mondal, P.W.2, Kalipada Mondal and P.W.4 Krishna Das one eye witnesses to the incident have unequivocally stated that opposite party along with others had assaulted the victim to death. P.W.6, Pankaj Mali (who was examined during the pendency of the cancellation application) after stating that brothers of Paran Mondal had dragged the victim altered his stance and stated the opposite party as well as the other accused persons who were present in Court were not the persons who had dragged the victim. As his stance in the course of deposition was inconsistent and gave an impression that the witness had been won over by the accused persons, he was declared hostile.

6. It is trite law while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail the enquiry of Court is not restricted to the necessity of custodial interrogation for the purposes of the investigation alone but also extends to the gravity and seriousness of the offence as well as the prima facie involvement of the accused therein.

7. Learned Sessions Judge appears to have completely glossed over the gravity and seriousness of the offence and the prima facie involvement of the opposite party who appears to be one of the assailants of the deceased. Furthermore, the court below was persuaded to grant anticipatory bail to opposite party herein on the premise he was an aged person. Such submission made on behalf of the opposite party is out and out false and not borne out from the records before us. In the application for pre- arrest bail, opposite party had claimed he was 28 years old while before this Court a birth certificate is annexed in the affidavit filed on his behalf wherefrom it appears he was about 20 years of age at the time of occurrence.

8. We have also considered the issue of ailment of opposite party no.2 and have gone through the medical certificates annexed in support of such plea. We find that the opposite party has b