GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter arises out of a letter of complaint sent by one Ajiman Bibi to the Honhle Chief Justice in connection with Bishnupur P. S. Case No. 149 (6)/98 dated 7-6-1998 started under. Sections 376/302/34, I. P. C. The Honble Chief Justice, on the basis of the said complaint obtained the case diary and the concerned lower Court records and then directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench presided over by G. R. Bhattacharjee, J. This is how the matter has come up before this Bench. ( 2 ) AJIMAN Bibis married daughter Sabiran Bibi aged about 23 years used to live with Ajiman Bibi. As usual on 6-6-1998 Sabiran went to her work in the morning but did not return home. Next morning the dead body of Sabiran was found lying in the field with marks of violence prima facie suggesting that she was possibly raped and then murdered. On that very date, that is, on 7-6- 1998 Ajiman Bibi lodged FIR at Bishnupur P,s, against the six accused persons, namely, (1) Jahangir Mondal, (2) Mustakin Mondal. (3) Humaun Mollah, (4) Qutubuddin Mollah, (5) Mustakin Mollah and (6) Naser Sekh suspecting that those accused persons had raped and murdered her daughter and also describing some prior history including the history of recent effort made by the said accused persons to outrage the modesty of her daughter and also of their threats to kill her. Soon thereafter, the FIR named accused Naser was arrested on 12-6-1998 but the other five accused persons remained at large and they ultimately obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Alipore on 1-7-1999. Thereafter, Ajiman Bibi made the complaint to the Hontble Chief Justice that the accused persons managed to obtain bail in collusion with the Public Prosecutor. Alipore and thereafter, they are threatening her and she did not get any redress from the 1. 0. and the O. C. of the P. S. , inspite of making complaint to them. Thereafter, Ajiman Bibi made the complaint to the Hontble Chief Justice that the accused persons managed to obtain bail in collusion with the Public Prosecutor. Alipore and thereafter, they are threatening her and she did not get any redress from the 1. 0. and the O. C. of the P. S. , inspite of making complaint to them. ( 3 ) ON perusal of the case diary and the relevant case records we found that the FIR named accused persons who obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge on 1-7-1999 earlier applied to the same Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail but on that occasion their prayer was rejected on 24-8- 1998 with the observation that the case diary revealed that they were responsible for the offence. Thereafter, they moved the High Court but a Division Bench of this Court comprising B. Panigrahi and D. P. Sen Gupta, JJ. also rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail on merit after perusal of case diary on 5-4-1999. Even thereafter they went back to the Sessions Judge, Alipore and again prayed for anticipatory bail and this time, they were successful in obtaining anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge on 1-7-1999 who while passing the order recorded that the learned Public Prosecutor of his Court did not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail stating inter alia that there were in fact no implicating materials against the petitioners, and the learned Lawyer for the petitioners submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case. The order also inter alia recorded that in the facts and circumstances discussed and considering the case diary the Sessions Judge found it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail and accordingly allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail. When these facts came to the notice of this Bench, it was felt by the Bench that the Sessions Judge. Alipore prima facie acted without jurisdiction and his act in granting anticipatory bail to the self same accused persons whose prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court amounted to an act of gross impropriety and judicial indiscipline. This Bench was also surprised to note that the Public Prosecutor. Alipore did not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail on 1-7-1999 and rather submitted that there were no implicating materials against the accused persons. This Bench was also surprised to note that the Public Prosecutor. Alipore did not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail on 1-7-1999 and rather submitted that there were no implicating materials against the accused persons. This Bench in the circumstances asked for explanation, if any in the matter from the Sessions Judge as well as the Public Prosecutor of his Court. The concerned accused persons were also asked to show cause as to why their jail should not be cancelled the case diary was found written only upto the end of May, 1999. The 1. 0. of the case and the O. C. of the P. S. were asked to appear in Court and they were also asked to submit explanation. All of them submitted their ex p Ia nations. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the concerned accused persons submits that in her written complaint addressed to the Hontble Chief Justice, the complainant has stated about threats allegedly offered to her by the accused persons and also about alleged collusion of the accused persons with the Public Prosecutor. South 24 Paraganas and therefore the courts consideration should be confined only to that aspect of the complaint. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned Advocate representing the accused persons, because while examining the matter we found that the Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the self-same accused persons whose prayer for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected not only by the Court of Sessions itself but also by the High Court. Since prima facie we felt that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to a person whose prayer for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by the High Court: and the act of the Sessions Judge in granting anticipatory bail was an act of gross impropriety and judicial indiscipline. We took up the matter obviously in suo motu exercise of the Courts jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and Article 227 of the Constitution for the purpose of preventing gross abuse of the process of Court and for correcting the effect of illegal exercise of jurisdiction by a Subordinate Court to the extent of overriding the institutional superiority and hierarchical authority of this Court. P. C. and Article 227 of the Constitution for the purpose of preventing gross abuse of the process of Court and for correcting the effect of illegal exercise of jurisdiction by a Subordinate Court to the extent of overriding the institutional superiority and hierarchical authority of this Court. It is the imperative responsibility of the High Court to protect itself from the invasion of its authority, because the High Court's authority and its functional superiority mandated by law and guaranteed by the Constitution has to be protected so that the rule of law may survive for the benefit of the community. It is total anarchy that the accused persons get anticipatory bail from a Court subordinate to the High Court after the High Court had rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail. What is worse, is that the accused persons, in ground V in their application for anticipatory bail filed before the Sessions Judge, and in para 3 of the affidavit affirmed in support of that application clearly disclosed that their prayer for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by the Court of Sessions as well as by the High Court. Inspite of that they very easily got anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge without any resistance from the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judge in his explanation says that it was not within his knowledge nor was it brought to his notice by the Public Prosecutor that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the self same accused persons was earlier rejected by the Court of Sessions and by the Honble High Court. This explanation of the Sessions Judge even when accepted at its face value does not give any good account of him. If the Sessions Judge, would have taken even a little trouble of casting a cursory glance across the application for anticipatory bail of the accused persons, he would have readily discovered without the aid of anybody else that the accused persons themselves had disclosed in their application at two places that their prayer for anticipatory bail was earlier rejected by this Court, and indeed it was his bounden responsibility to check up before allowing the prayer atleast from the application itself whether any earlier application for anticipatory bail was moved anywhere. The case-diary also contained this information that the High Court earlier rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail. The case-diary also contained this information that the High Court earlier rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail. To say the least, the Sessions Judge acted in an extremely casual and careless manner as a result of which the hierarchical system of the administration of justice has been reduced to a mockery which in turn is sure to cause gross erosion of public confidence in the hierarchical superiority of this Court. ( 5 ) WE are also shocked and dismayed by the performance of the Public Prosecutor of the District. In his explanation submitted before this Court, far from being apologetic the learned Public Prosecutor of the District says inter alia that he has to place facts of the case as appearing in the case diary and as Public Prosecutor he never recommends or opposes any application. This approach, we are afraid, is not correct. The Public Prosecutor is not merely a passive conduct. In a fit case where the interest of justice so demands he has indeed a positive responsibility to oppose and place all relevant materials before the Court and thereafter, it will be for the Court to take its own decision. The learned Public Prosecutor of the District also says in his explanation that the case diary was placed before the learned Sessions Judge and the previous rejections too are to be reflected in the case-diary and the learned Sessions Judge perused the case diary and passed his order. He is not repentent, not remorseful that the accused persons obtained anticipatory bail from the learned Sessions Judge in his presence by stultifying the hierarchical superiority of the High Court. It was indeed his responsibility and duty, not only to attract the attention of the learned Sessions Judge to the fact as appearing in the case diary and as disclosed in the application itself that prayer of the accused persons of anticipatory bail was already rejected by the High Court, but also to expressly oppose the application on the singular ground that the application was not tenable both legally and on propriety as similar prayer was earlier rejected by the High Court. But unfortunately, he did nothing of the sort and rather allowed the accused persons to steal a march on the situation inspite of the order of this Court. But unfortunately, he did nothing of the sort and rather allowed the accused persons to steal a march on the situation inspite of the order of this Court. We are clearly of the opinion that the learned Public Prosecutor failed in discharging his responsibility to point out to the learned Sessions Judge that earlier such an application was rejected by the Court of Sessions as well as by the High Court and we are surprised that the learned Public Prosecutor is not even remorseful about the lapse on his part in the matter. Now that we have pointed out his lapse in respect of a vital aspect of the matter it will be graceful for him in the fitness of things to voluntarily step down from the office he has been holding now. ( 6 ) AS regards the absence of entries in the case diary since the end of May, 1999 the 1. 0. says that as he had sent the case diary to Court of Sessions after it was requisitioned in connection with the application filed there he did not get opportunity to make entries therein. We, however, cannot appreciate how he failed to arrest the concerned accused persons although they were merrily moving from one Court to another suffering rejection after rejection till they ultimately succeeded in their mission. The very fact that the concerned accused persons were roaming at large undeterred and unhindered for about a year without allowing the police to catch hold of them is also an indication of their manoeuvering capacity which the local police station is seemingly unable to cope with. We are not entering into the factual aspect of the case as that is not necessary for our present purpose but having regard to the situation obtaining in the matter and the gravity of the offence, we are of the opinion that the case should now be entrusted to the CID for investigation. ( 7 ) WE are also surprised that the learned Advocate for the concerned accused persons thought it proper to move for anticipatory bail inspite of the fact that they disclosed in their application that earlier such prayer was rejected by the High Court. ( 7 ) WE are also surprised that the learned Advocate for the concerned accused persons thought it proper to move for anticipatory bail inspite of the fact that they disclosed in their application that earlier such prayer was rejected by the High Court. Every learned Advocate in his capacity as an officer of the Court must be on guard to see that he does not mislead a Subordinate Court to do something which is not only illegal but which has also the effect of an invasion of the authority of the High Court. It is the responsibility of every associated person to make his contribution to ensure judicial discipline and propriety and not chaos is maintained in the arena of the administration of justice. ( 8 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor of the High Court has referred to the decision in Bimala Devi v. State of Bihar where the Supreme Court strongly deprecated grant of bail by a Magistrate after such prayer was earlier rejected by the High Court. Here in our case It is anticipatory bail and once a prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected by the High Court, the Court of Sessions has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail to the self same accused persons and if it does so it will not only be an act of gross impropriety and judicial indiscipline but will also be wholly without jurisdiction and per se illegal, and this is precisely what the learned Sessions Judge has done in this case and once this has come to the notice of this Court it has to remedy the same. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, we do hereby cancel the bail granted by the Court below illegally and without jurisdiction to the five F. I. R. named accused persons namely. Jahangir Mondal, Mustakin Mondal, Humaun Mollah. Kutubuddin Mollah and Mustakin Mollah and direct them to surrender before the learned S. D. J. M. within twenty four hours failing which the S. D. J. M. will issue warrant of arrest against them and take them into custody and then deal with them in accordance with law. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned P. S. is directed to ensure the arrest of the said persons. The Officer-in-Charge of the concerned P. S. is directed to ensure the arrest of the said persons. ( 10 ) FOR proper investigation of the case we think that the investigation should now be entrusted to C. I. D. and accordingly we direct the D. I. G. , C. I. D. , West Bengal to arrange for proper investigation of the case by some competent officer of proven worth under the supervision of a competent superior. We note here that the Officer-in-Charge. Bishnupur P. S. has reported that he has cautioned the accused persons on the basis of the diary lodged by the complainant at the P. S. on 3-8-1999. ( 11 ) AS we have seen, the Sessions Judge, Sri S. K. Maity says that he did not do anything mala fide in the matter and he was not aware that the High Court earlier rejected anticipatory bail in respect of these accused persons and the Public Prosecutor also did not bring this fact to his notice. He also says that the information regarding rejection of anticipatory bail was not therein the C. D. This is however not correct. The C. D. at page 89 contains this information. The application filed on 13-5-1999 before the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail, as we have already noted, also discloses this information. The Sessions Judge was not careful enough to take notice of the same. He has however tendered unqualified apology. With anguish we record our disapproval of his damaging carelessness leaving the rest of it to the administrative side of the Court. ( 12 ) AS already noted, we are shocked to come across the wholly untenable approach in the matter as is being maintained by Sri J. N. Ray; the learned Public Prosecutor, Alipore. He is not even sorry for what has happened. He thinks that his responsibility as Public Prosecutor is confined only to the task of handing up of the C. D. to the Sessions Judge and it is none of his business even to point out at the hearing of an anticipatory bail application that such application was earlier rejected by the High Court. He thinks that his responsibility as Public Prosecutor is confined only to the task of handing up of the C. D. to the Sessions Judge and it is none of his business even to point out at the hearing of an anticipatory bail application that such application was earlier rejected by the High Court. We are dearly of the opinion that his existence in office with the approach he is maintaining is of no assistance to the Court and to the cause of justice and we therefore hope that in the fitness of things he will gracefully and voluntarily step down from the office he is holding failing which it will be for the State Government to consider replacement so that public confidence in the efficacy of the office of the Public Prosecutor and in the concern of the State Authorities for the same does not suffer undesirable set back to the detriment of the cause of administration of criminal justice. ( 13 ) IT has been brought to our notice that one arrested person not named in the F. I. R. , while in the custody of the police in connection with this case was exposed to media interview for making statement for telecast in respect of the merit of the present case. Police should not have allowed such interview with an arrested person while in their custody in respect of the merit of the sub judice matter as that may impede the course of investigation and the cause of justice as well. All police authorities are hereby directed to note this for future guidance. The Director General of Police. West Bengal and the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta are directed to enforce compliance of this direction. ( 14 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor. High Court is directed to communicate this order to the D. I. G. , C. I. D. West Bengal, Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station the Public Prosecutor. Alipore and other concerned State Authorities for information and necessary action. The Department is directed to communicate this order to the Sessions Judge, Alipore. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to take necessary follow up action. ( 15 ) THE matter be listed one week hence for submission of report by the learned Public Prosecutor of this Court about the follow up actions taken pursuant to this order. The Department is directed to communicate this order to the Sessions Judge, Alipore. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to take necessary follow up action. ( 15 ) THE matter be listed one week hence for submission of report by the learned Public Prosecutor of this Court about the follow up actions taken pursuant to this order. The case diary is now returned to the learned Public Prosecutor High Court. The Department is directed to return the record of the BGR2469/98 at once direct to the concerned Court of Magistrate. ( 16 ) THE three records of Cr. Misc. Cases Nos. 2042 of 1998, 1870 of 1999 and 2597 of 1999, obtained from the Court of Sessions, Alipore be also returned to that Court after keeping xerox copies of the order-sheets and applications of those cases. Petition allowed.