The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail should consider the gravity of the offense and the involvement of the accused, and custodial interrogation can have a significant impact on the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The petitioner has assailed the orders dated September 28, 2020, November 18, 2020 and February 11, 2021 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at alipore in C.G.R. Case No. 2156 of 2020 arising out of Karaya Police Station Case No 237 of 2020 dated June 22, 2020 under Sections 498a/354C/384/406/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in this application. By such orders the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had granted bail to the private opposite parties. The petitioner has sought cancellation of the bail so granted.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner, is the wife of the opposite party no. 2. She had lodged a police complaint against the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 with the Karaya Police Station which was registered as a first Information Report and a police case started. The opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 had been granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on different dates. He has referred to the orders granting bail to the opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4. He has submitted that the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 who are the in-laws of the petitioner surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on September 28, 2020. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had granted interim bail to the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4. The interim bail had been directed to remain in force till November 18, 2020. On November 18, 2020, the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 had applied for confirmation of the interim bail upon which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate confirmed the order of bail. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 had surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 11, 2021 and applied for bail. Such prayer for bail had been opposed on behalf of the State. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had proceeded to grant bail to the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that two other co-accused persons were already enlarged on bail after surrendering before the Court.

3. Referring to 2002 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 598 (Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others) learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, there is a difference in consideration of the parameters for cancelation of a bail and a challenge to a perverse order granting bail. He has submitted that, all the three impugned orders are perverse. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the parameters for granting bail. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has failed to take into consideration the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the opposite party no. 2 therein. He has contended that, there are allegations of forgery. In fact, the opposite party no. 2 has two different driving licenses and two permanent account numbers with the Income-Tax authorities. The complaint with the police has serious allegations with regard to forgery against at least the opposite party no 2. He has relied upon 2009 Volume 14 Supreme Court Case 638 (Subodh Kumar Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another) for the proposition that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acted with undue haste in granting bail on the date of the surrender. He has relied upon 2016 Volume 3 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Cal) 606 ( In Re: Sant Lal Gupta @ Sant Lal Ram Shaw) and 2018 SCC Online Delhi 12306 (Court on its Own Motion Vs. State) in support of his contentions that when the order of the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction, the same is required to be interfered with.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon 2022 SCC online SC 30 (Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan and another) and submitted that, an order granting bail should be informed with reasons. None of the orders assailed in the present application has any cogent reason for the purpose of granting bail to any of the private parties.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that, custodial interr