The arrest of an accused during the pendency of anticipatory bail is permissible, but it raises questions of procedural fairness and respect for court timelines.

1. Sonika Singh Chauhan (hereafter the victim) suffered multiple injuries in a car crash at the dead hour of night on Rashbehari Avenue in South Kolkata on April 29, 2017. She was seated next to her friend who was driving the car (WB12C / 9755). Ultimately, the victim succumbed to her injuries. Tollygunge P.S. FIR No. 109 of 2017, dated April 29, 2017 under S.279/338/427/304 - A, Indian Penal Code (hereafter the IPC) was registered, wherein the victim's friend was named as an accused (hereafter the petitioner). Since the FIR was registered for alleged commission of bailable offences, the petitioner surrendered before the relevant Magistrate on May 5, 2017 and obtained bail on condition that he would co - operate with the investigating officer. While he was on bail, investigation of the FIR progressed. On the basis of the materials collected in course of investigation, the investigating officer submitted a prayer before the relevant Magistrate on May 30, 2017 for incorporating S.304, IPC in the array of offences instead of S.304 - A thereof. Such prayer was made based on statements of witnesses recorded both under S.161 and S.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the Cr.P.C.) and forensic report to the effect that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol on the fateful night and the car driven by him was speeding at 93 km / hour at the time of the crash, respectively. Anticipating arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before this Court. The application was received by the department on June 5, 2017. Although, the advocate - on - record for the petitioner wished the application to be listed on June 6, 2017, the same was not listed because of the system presently being followed by this Bench of listing of applications filed in the course of a particular month in the following month's combined list.

2. The application ought to have been listed in the monthly combined list for July, 2017, which was published on July 3, 2017. While all the applications filed during June, 2017 were listed in the July monthly list, this application was not listed. On July 3, 2017 itself, the fact that the application had not been listed was brought to our notice by Mr. Mazumder, learned advocate for the petitioner. Considering the number assigned to the application, it was observed by this Bench that it would be considered after item No. 792 of the monthly list is called on for consideration. On an enquiry being made by this Bench regarding the reason for non - listing of the application in the July monthly list, the bench clerk showed photocopy of the draft list. It appeared therefrom that although the number assigned by the department to the application together with its cause - title was printed in the draft list, the same had mysteriously been struck - off by a straight horizontal line. The bench clerk denied having drawn the horizontal line but did not rule out the possibility of the same being the handiwork of some mischievous mind after it left his hands. Accordingly, this Bench thought of making appropriate direction in regard thereto at the time of consideration of the application on merits.

3. Since there was a likelihood of the application being called on for consideration on July 6, 2017, the same was listed under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' with an appropriate noting that it would be called on after item No. 792. At the commencement of court proceedings, Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned senior advocate appeared for the petitioner and had requested for early hear