Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1002 (CAL)

In Re: Ketabul Sk v. .

2012-11-29

Indira Banerjee, Joymalya Bagchi

body2012
Judgment Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court praying for pre-arrest bail. It appears that pre-arrest bail was earlier granted by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 26th June, 2012. However, such order was cancelled by the said Judge on 24.7.2012 on the sole ground that the petitioners had failed to disclose that an application praying for self-same relief was pending before this Court. 3. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners very candidly submits that the petitioners had not intimated the Sessions Judge regarding the pendency of this application before this Court. He, however, argues that such failure did not affect the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to consider the prayer for pre-arrest bail on merits which the said Judge, in fact had done. In support of his contention, he relied upon on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1978)2 Vol. 2 SCC 366 (Monhan Singh v. Union of Territory, Chandigarh). 4. Mr. Sanyal, learned Addition, Public Prosecutor submits that the failure to disclose the pendency of the application, for self same relief before this Court, had embarrassed the Court in considering the self-same relief. He further draws our notice, to paragraph 8 of this application wherein this fact had been admitted by the petitioners. 5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that in, view of the law decided in the case of Mohan Singh (supra), mere failure to disclose the pendency of a bail application before a Superior Court is not a relevant ground for cancellation of bail. It is settled law that cancellation of bail stands of a much stricter footing and is to be resorted to only in the event of perversity in the order granting bail or on account of misuse of liberty by the accused person. No such ground is evidenced in this case. Hence, we are of the opinion that cancellation of the order of pre-arrest bail was not justified. For these reasons, we are inclined in allowing the application for pre-arrest of the petitioners. 6. No such ground is evidenced in this case. Hence, we are of the opinion that cancellation of the order of pre-arrest bail was not justified. For these reasons, we are inclined in allowing the application for pre-arrest of the petitioners. 6. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on executing of bond of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be local, subject to the condition contained in sub-section 2 of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of.