Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 377 (CAL)

Kakali Roy (Mondal) v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-06-28

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, SUBAL BAIDYA

body2013
Judgment :- Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioner in this CRM under s.439(2) CrPC dated May 8, 2013 is seeking cancellation of bail that was granted by this court to the second, third and fourth respondents in the CRM by an order dated February 8, 2013 (in CRM No.1626 of 2013). The respondents on bail, the petitioner’s husband and brothers-in-law (husband’s brothers) respectively, are accused of offences under ss.498A/406/307/34 IPC. It was mentioned in the order dated February 8, 2013 that advocate for the respondents on bail had informed the court of an out of court settlement correctness whereof was not disputed by advocate for the petitioner who was heard. The case of the petitioner in this CRM is that the documents at pp.14, 16, 19, 21 and 23 of the CRM will reveal that the respondents on bail refusing to go by the out of court settlement have used abusive language against the petitioner’s people who have also been threatened on the grounds that the criminal case has not been withdrawn. The above-noted documents are the several complaints the petitioner sent to the officer in charge of the police station concerned. Documents have been submitted to show that the information of commission of the offences mentioned in the complaints were recorded by the police officer in the general diary maintained in the police station. Advocate for the petitioner has prayed for a direction asking the police officer to submit a report after making investigation. In view of the provisions of s.155 CrPC the police officer entering the information in the general diary was not supposed to make any investigation in the absence of an order therefor passed by a competent criminal court. Entry in the general diary meant that the petitioner was referred to the court. Hence simply because the petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail, we do not think it will be appropriate for us to ask the police officer to make an investigation and submit a report. The matter cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner when the question is of cancellation of a bail granted after considering all facts and circumstances. Even otherwise, we do not think the allegations made in the complaints are sufficient to cancel the bail. The matter cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner when the question is of cancellation of a bail granted after considering all facts and circumstances. Even otherwise, we do not think the allegations made in the complaints are sufficient to cancel the bail. The principal allegation is that the respondents on bail have refused to go by the out of court settlement entitling the petitioner to lead a smooth married life with the second respondent. Failure of the out of court settlement, if any, cannot be the fundament for cancellation of the bail. For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.