Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 368 (CAL)

Lakshman Seth v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-06-27

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, SUBAL BAIDYA

body2013
Judgment :- Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioner in this CRAN dated April 19, 2013 is seeking relaxation of a condition mentioned in the order of this court dated July 13, 2012 (in CRM No.10021 of 2012) granting him bail. The relevant condition restrains him from entering the Purba Medinipur district except for attending court proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated July 13, 2012 the State filed an SLP on July 18, 2012 and one Kalyani & Ors. filed another SLP on August 8, 2012. During pendency of the SLPs the petitioner filed a CRAN No.3723 of 2012 for relaxation of the condition. By an order dated January 10, 2013 the CRAN was rejected. The order dated January 10, 2013 is quoted below:- “Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. We have been given to understand that challenging the order, a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the next date is fixed on 4th February, 2013. Having regard to such fact, we are not inclined to consider the petitioner’s prayer for relaxation of condition of bail and accordingly, this application is rejected at this stage.” Now the petitioner has filed this CRAN once again seeking relaxation of the condition. The State has filed an affidavit stating the grounds on which it is opposing the CRAN. Mr.Bhattacharjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted that pendency of the SLPs in which notice has been issued cannot prevent this court from deciding the CRAN on merits. Mr.Advocate General relying on A.Haleem & Ors. v. M.S.Tajudeen & Ors., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 644 and Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434 has submitted that it will not be appropriate for this court to decide the prayer for relaxation of the condition when the SLPs filed against the bail order itself are pending before the Supreme Court. Mr.Majumder appearing for Kalyani & Ors. has adopted the submission. Both Mr.Advocate General and Mr.Majumder have submitted that even on merits the petitioner is not entitled to an order relaxing the bail condition. They have said that relaxation will give the petitioner, an influential person, a chance to influence the witnesses and thus affect a fair trial of the case. This has been strongly contested by Mr.Bhattacharjee saying that neither the State nor Kalyani & Ors. have applied for cancellation of the bail. They have said that relaxation will give the petitioner, an influential person, a chance to influence the witnesses and thus affect a fair trial of the case. This has been strongly contested by Mr.Bhattacharjee saying that neither the State nor Kalyani & Ors. have applied for cancellation of the bail. The CRAN was taken up for hearing on a previous occasion when we wanted to know from Mr.Public Prosecutor who was representing the State whether a relaxation of the restrictive condition for permitting the petitioner to stay at his home limiting his movements would be acceptable to the prosecution. Mr.Advocate General has submitted today that any relaxation of the restrictive condition will frustrate the SLPs. On these facts, we do not think it will be consonant with the judicial discipline, if we, decide the prayer for relaxation of the bail condition during pendency of the SLPs filed questioning the bail order itself. As noted hereinbefore this was the view taken by this court previously as well. It is to be noted that to the order dated January 10, 2013 rejecting the previous CRAN one of us (Baidya, J) was a party. For these reasons, we dispose of the CRAN without going into its merits.