JUDGMENT 1. YET another instance of an outrageous and shockingly improper order passed by Shri B. Mondal, Sessions Judge-in-charge, Alipore has surfaced before us. 2. THE petitioner hereinabove is the informant of Thakurpukur PS Case No. 166(7)08 dated 10.07.2008 under section 364/34/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of his information relating to the death of his brother Snehangshu Dasgupta, the opposite party No.2 (Amit Rai @ Amit Roy) along with others was arrested and was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 11/07/2008. 3. AFTER a period of police remand the accused persons were in jail custody and in the meantime chargesheet was submitted. 4. SHRI B. Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge by his Order No. 3 dated 18.09.2008 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4802 of 2008 was of the view: "........As the accd. petnr. appears to be a minor, I allow the bail petition. Hence the accd. petnr. may find bail of Rs. 4,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2,000/-each one of whom must be a local surety who is the father of the accd. petnr., to the satisfaction of the Id. CJM Alipore." The petitioner hereinabove, has brought out this application seeking to set aside the wholly improper and illegal order passed by Shri B. Mondal,Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore. 5. ACTING on the basis of the same we issued notice. 6. SERVICE return filed by the petitioner shows that notice sent to the addresses of the opposite party No.2 in two different places were returned with the postal endorsement 'Left wt. Addresses'. Affidavit to that extent was affirmed by the petitioner himself. Such being the position, we proceeded to hear the application with the assistance of Shri Somopriyo Chowdhury for the petitioner and Shri S. Roy for the State. 7. SHRI Chowdhury submitted that there was no evidence before the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore to show that the opposite party No.2 was a minor. 8. ACCORDING to Shri Chowdhury in the absence of any such proof, the order impugned was completely an illegal order. Shri Chowdhury draws our attention to the severity of the crime committed by the opposite party No.2 where the brother of the petitioner was called and murdered by the accused persons. 9. 8. ACCORDING to Shri Chowdhury in the absence of any such proof, the order impugned was completely an illegal order. Shri Chowdhury draws our attention to the severity of the crime committed by the opposite party No.2 where the brother of the petitioner was called and murdered by the accused persons. 9. ACCORDING to Shri Chowdhury, even though chargesheet has been submitted--it was not proper on the part of Shri B. Mondal, the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore to have allowed the prayer for bail of the opposite party No.2, since it would damage the prosecution case. 10. HE was also of the view, keeping in mind the fact that the opposite party No.2 is not available in either of the two addresses; it is absolutely clear that he has absconded. Accordingly, Shri Chowdhury made a forceful presentation before us for cancellation of the bail granted by Shri B. Mondal, Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore. 11. SHRI Roy produced the case diary before us. He was of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. 12. ACCORDING to him there are very strong materials in the case diary against the opposite party No.2 and it was not proper even though chargesheet was submitted- on the part of Shri B. Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore to have allowed the prayer for the bail of the opposite party No.2. He submitted that he has very carefully checked up the question that the opposite party No.2 is a minor as found by Shri Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore but could not find any basis thereof. 13. HE did not support the order. 14. IN this trajectory we have heard this application without the audience of the opposite party No.2 under the circumstances noted hereinabove. At the very outset, we are of the considered view that the order, which has been passed by Shri B.Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge is a palpably illegal order and without a whimper the same is required to be set aside. Otherwise, it would perpetuate a manifest illegality. 15. SINCE the bail has once been granted, even wrongly by an otherwise Court of conpetent jurisdiction -simply, on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature, that by itself would not persuade us to consider the prayer for cancellation. 16. Otherwise, it would perpetuate a manifest illegality. 15. SINCE the bail has once been granted, even wrongly by an otherwise Court of conpetent jurisdiction -simply, on the ground that the allegations are serious in nature, that by itself would not persuade us to consider the prayer for cancellation. 16. THIS position is well-settled but what worries us is the absolute atrocious finding of Shri B. Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore which would not stand to reason before a prudent man; far less than in a Court of Law. In such a serious case relating to an offence under sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Shri B. Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in- Charge, Alipore, in our view dealt with the matter very casually and in a rather ham handed manner, 17. NEITHER there was any evidence nor any materials before Shri Mondal,learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore to jump to the conclusion that "..... accd. petnr. appears to be a minor." 18. EVEN in our wildest guess we cannot reconcile ourselves with regard to the fact as to How Shri Mondal, learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore finds the accused is a minor in the absence of any tangible proof. He has not taken into account the necessary steps as known to law for the purpose of ascertaining the question of a person being a juvenile. Instead, he has, in an extremely cursory manner dealt with the matter Which was *.................................. while discharging his function as a Sessions Judge-in-Charge. This is absolutely deplorable. The order has become vulnerable and has to be set aside [See, Dinesh M.N. vs. State of Gujarat, 2008(2) SCC (Cri) 508]. 19. THAT apart the conventional principle of law relating to cancellation of bail has been kept in mind by us while hearing this application. The order of bail was granted on untenable grounds and was not based on proper facts and in complete non-appreciation of the provisions of relevant law. [Also see: Narendra K. Amin vs. State of Gujarat, 2008(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter (SO Vol.79 Page 175]. 20. MORE so, since the order impugned has been based on irrelevant considerations and is a result of a patent non-application of mind the same cannot be permitted to remain [See: Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed vs. Mehmood Hussain, 2007 Cr. LJ 3255]. 20. MORE so, since the order impugned has been based on irrelevant considerations and is a result of a patent non-application of mind the same cannot be permitted to remain [See: Rizwan Akbar Hussain Syyed vs. Mehmood Hussain, 2007 Cr. LJ 3255]. From a wholesome approbation of the entire materials before us we feel the Order No. 3 dated 18.09.2008, which was based on irrelevant considerations and not upon consideration of the materials and the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor; we set aside the same. 21. NOW, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom the bond was furnished by the opposite party No.2 stands cancelled, would at once issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. 22. IN the event the opposite party No.2 does not surrender to his bond, necessary steps as known to law for securing the presence of the opposite party No.2 would be taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore by way of taking recourse of sections 79, 82 and 83 Cr. PC. While parting, we would like to request the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore that in future he would not entrust any file to Shri B.Mondal during his absence. 23. APPLICATION allowed. 24. BAIL bond stands cancelled. Sent down this order at once by Special Messenger as prayer for to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. 25. LEARNED