IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE C.R.R. 312 of 2022 State of West Bengal Vs.

Subrata Mondal & Anr.

With CRR 2307 of 2021 Khokan Mondal Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner/State : Mr. Bitasok Banerjee For the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Dipayan Kundu For the State in CRR 2307 of 2021 : Mr. Rana Mukherjee Ms. Sujata Das Heard on : 21.02.2025 Judgment on : 27.02.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee , J.:

1. These two applications under section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C) have been preferred by the State of West Bengal and the de facto complainant respective against self- same order dated 29th October, 2021 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alipore, in BGR Case no. 4130 of 2021. By the order impugned learned Magistrate was pleased to grant bail in favour of the opposite parties herein, subject to furnishing bail bond.

2. It discloses from the FIR that Jiban Tala P.S. Case No. 335 of 2021 dated 12.10.2021 under sections 420/465/468/471/406/467/409/120B was started against the present two petitioners, alleging that with the help of certain forged documents, the petitioners have recorded their names in the Record of Rights. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioners have forged deeds and thereby succeeded in making illegal gain.

3. However, learned Magistrate disposed of the petitioners’ bail application filed under section 437 of the Cr.P.C. with the following observation:-

“Bail petition is moved Perused the case record and all other materials on record. I find that the allegation is civil in nature and no such allegation against the accused for which his detention is required. Hence the accused may find bail of Rs. 1000/- each with one surety of like amount in default to judicial custody till 06.04.2022.

4. Being aggrieved by that order learned public prosecutor on behalf of the State argued that the allegation is serious in nature and considering gravity and merit of the case, the control of investigation has been assumed by Enforcement Branch. Learned Magistrate surprisingly granted confirmed bail on direct surrender before the court below, with an erroneous finding that the matter is civil in nature and that the detention of the present petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation. He further contended that the order of bail was passed without notifying the investigating agency and without giving an opportunity for hearing to the learned Public Prosecutor and without appreciating that custodial interrogation of the opposite parties are absolutely necessary to unearth the truth for the sake of natural justice.

5. Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the State further argued that this is not an application simpliciter asking for cancellation of bail on post bail conduct, rather the inherent power of the court has been sought to be invoked herein for judicial review of the order under challenge and propriety in passing such order on the ground mentioned in the main Application. In this context the relied upon judgement reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118 (Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Another), (2022) 2 SCC 66 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar) and (2001) 6 SCC 338 (Puran Vs. Rambilas and Another) .

6. He further contended that the learned Magistrate in one hand after meticulous examination of the petition of complaint had directed the police to start investigation, since it discloses cognizable offence and on the other hand the same Magistrate at the time of hearing of bail application held, without assigning any cogent reason, that the dispute is civil in nature. Not only that he released the accused persons on bail without hearing Public Prosecutor, when the accused persons are booked under section 420/465/468/471/406/467/409/120B of the IPC. Accordingly learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State in C.R.R 312 of 2012 submits that the order