The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction in granting bail and the grounds for cancellation of bail, particularly the accused's non-compliance with bail conditions and impeding the investigation.

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. Assailing the Orders of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi (for brevity “Sessions Court, Namchi”), dated 02-09-2017 and 04-09-2017, in Criminal Misc. Case No.99 of 2017, the Petitioner herein seeks setting aside of the impugned Orders and prays that the Respondent-Accused (hereinafter, Accused), be remanded to custody.

2. The arguments of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner were two-pronged. Firstly, the propriety of the Order of the Sessions Court, Namchi, dated 02-09-2017, granting interim Bail to the Accused and confirming the Order on 04-09-2017 was questioned being allegedly on extraneous considerations and without jurisdiction. In the second leg of his arguments, it was contended that despite the fact that the Accused had obtained Bail, she had failed to comply with the conditions set forth therein, viz; to make her self-available before the Investigating Officer (for short “I.O.”), thereby impeding investigation.

3. That, several attempts made by the I.O. to locate the Accused at her residence, as reflected in the Affidavit of the I.O. dated 12-12-2017, has culminated in vain, as the house of the Accused was found to be locked. That, the I.O. having no other alternative took it upon herself to serve a Notice dated 07-12-2017 on the Surety of the Accused, who is present in Court, and vouches for the fact that the Accused is untraceable in the address furnished by her. It was further urged that the Accused is avoiding the Notice and ensuring that it cannot be served on her by remaining out of her house. That, the Notice issued by this Court was also returned with the report that the addressee was out of station. Nevertheless as the Notice was properly addressed to her in the residential address, furnished by her before the Sessions Court, Namchi, the Notice is deemed to have been served in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. His submission on this count was garnered with reliance on the ratiocination of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Hiralal and Others, and K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510.

4. Learned Counsel would further canvass that the Sessions Court, Namchi issued the impugned Orders without jurisdiction, as the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) was lodged against the Accused (numbered as Accused No.14), at Sadar Police Station, Darjeeling, West Bengal, on 09-06-2017, pursuant to an offence committed by her with several others also in Darjeeling and she is a resident of the same place. Following the lodging of the FIR, on 31-08-2017 the Special Superintendent of Police (North), Criminal Investigation Department, Siliguri, West Bengal, informed and sought the assistance of the Superintendent of Police, South Sikkim, Namchi, Sikkim, in apprehending the Accused along with other Accused Persons mentioned in the letter therein. Consequently, the arrest was made, but the Sessions Court, Namchi has recorded that the Accused was arrested without a Warrant of Arrest from a competent Court. The fact of arrest of the Accused under a Warrant of Arrest is evident from the letter addressed by the I.O. to the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Sikkim, Namchi, where a prayer for two days’ transit remand was sought after her arrest and production before the said Court. No order was passed by the Learned Court of the concerned Magistrate. Instead, the Accused approached the Sessions Court, Namchi, who without considering that the prayer for transit remand was pending, granted Bail sans jurisdiction. The Sessions Court, Namchi had in its impugned Order recorded that the Accused was not arrested in the presence of female police personnel, contrary to the records available inasmuch Mrs. Prassanna Rai Yonzon, Inspector, CID, Siliguri, West Bengal, is the I.O. of the case. That apart, following the arrest of the Accused, her husband, Mangal Deo Rai, was duly informed. To fortify his submissions s