Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1039 (CAL)

Badal Chandra Rakshit v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-08-20

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE present petitioner in this case who is happened to be the Managercum- cashier and the petitioner no. 2 in C.R.R. No. 36 of 2010, who is the Secretary of the Haripal Tant Silpa Samabaya Samiti, have been arraigned as accused in connection with a case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 409/420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations of defalcation of a sum of Rs. 2,81,000/- approximately. In connection with the said case, both the petitioners were arrested on 21st March, 2009 and on being produced in Court on the self-same day, both of them were released on bail by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore. The said order of granting bail being challenged before the Learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, the Learned Sessions Judge cancelled the said order of bail. 2. IN C.R.R. No. 36 of 2010 while the subject matter of challenge is the order of cancellation of bail, in C.R.R. No. 1914 of 2010 the challenge is against an order of issuance of warrant of arrest passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore as the petitioner did not surrender in the Court after their bail being cancelled. Since in both the cases the issues involved are closely connected same are taken up for hearing as a matter of convenience. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties and the other materials on record as well as the Case Diary. 3. THE case in connection with which the petitioners were granted bail involved an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable with imprisonment for life. As such in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (1) of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not permissible for the Learned Magistrate to release the accused on bail, unless there are special reasons. 4. HOWEVER, having gone through the order whereby the petitioners were granted bail, I do not find any special reason has been assigned by the Learned Court concerned, while enlarging the accused on bail. Moreover, having regards to the materials available as against the present petitioners from the Case Diary, I am of the opinion there are not supposed to be enlarged on bail on the very first day of their production in Court. Moreover, having regards to the materials available as against the present petitioners from the Case Diary, I am of the opinion there are not supposed to be enlarged on bail on the very first day of their production in Court. I find in the Case Diary there are sufficient materials against the present petitioners, who have allegedly defalcated nearly Rs. 2,81,000.00. In such view of the matter, the Learned Judge has not committed any mistake in canceling the petitioners' bail. Accordingly, both the instant criminal revisions stand dismissed and order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly stands affirmed. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within a week from this date and failing which the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore shall take necessary legal action against them for their apprehension. It goes without saying this order will not operate as a bar to consider the petitioner's prayer for bail by any competent Court at the appropriate stage. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.