The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to cancel bail based on fraudulent misrepresentation and the importance of supervening circumstances in such decisions.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. - In this revision, the wife is contesting with her husband and other members of her matrimonial family over an order of the Trial Court dated 19.12.2015.

2. The brief background of the case leading the Trial Court to deliver the impugned order may be narrated as below:-

3. The FIR lodged by the petitioner dated 20.07.2015 has narrated inter alia that the petitioner was married to opposite party no.2 on 12th August, 2013. Her family members had to remit adequate dowry at the time of marriage. Also that she had been subjected to physical and mental torture after marriage and finally she came to know that opposite party no.2 was married earlier and during subsistence of such marriage and by suppressing the said fact, he has persuaded the petitioner to marry him and ultimately married her in the guise of being a bachelor. On the allegations as above the said case was registered as Hanskhali Police Station Case No.327 of 2015 dated 20.07.2015 under Sections 498A/376/417/120B/34 of IPC.

4. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, Nadia dated 27.07.2015 by dint of which allegedly on the very first day of production, the Magistrate has released all the accused persons/opposite parties on interim bail without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without even perusing the case diary.

5. Petitioner went up to the Sessions Court with her prayer under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C, 1973, for cancelling the order of bail granted by the Magistrate to the accused persons/opposite parties on 27.07.2015. The order of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge in the said case, being Criminal Misc Case No.804 of 2015 dated 19.12. 2015, is under challenge in this revision, in which the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has rejected petitioner's prayer for cancellation of the bail order granted to the opposite parties by the Magistrate.

6. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner categorically submits that the bail order granted by the Magistrate is erroneous, illegal and should not have been granted to the opposite parties on so far as, firstly, the nature of allegations against them is of sufficient gravity and seriousness and secondly, the Magistrate on the very first date without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and even without perusing the case diary for once has arrived at a decision to grant them bail which is perverse. Petitioner further submits that the Ld. Addition Sessions Judge has also erred in not considering that the grant of bail without perusing the case dairy and without considering gravity of the offence was perverse and not maintainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Additional Sessions Court misdirected itself in not considering the infirmity regarding the order of grant of bail and has proceeded only on the ground of availability of no record of misuse of any liberty by the accused persons. It is submitted since the order of grant of bail was inherently bad in law, the same should have been cancelled by the LD. Additional Sessions Judge and the impugned order dated 19.12. 2015 may thus be set aside.

7. Against the opposite parties, i.e, opposite party no.1 in particular, further argument has been advanced that there exists supervening circumstances of misuse by him, of the liberty granted under bail. Allegedly, the petitioner has been subjected to intimidation, coercion and force to depose falsely in court in this case, resulting into filing of a subsequent police case by her under Section 195A/341 IPC, on 11.09.2015. Investigation in that case has ended into filing of charge sheet by police on 10.09.2016. It is submitted that in connection with this case, bail prayer of the opposite parties was also rejected earlier by this Hon'ble court. On behalf of the petitioner, the following two judgments are relied on :

(i) Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319.

(ii) Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. N