Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 109 (CAL)

Nirmal Roy v. State of West Bengal

2015-02-11

SHIB SADHAN SADHU

body2015
JUDGMENT SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J. 1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside/quash the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Paschim Medinipur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3960 of 2013 in connection with G.R. Case No. 578 of 2013 arising out of Daspur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2013 dated 30.08.2013 whereby and whereunder the Learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted earlier in favour of the petitioner/accused. 2. I have heard Mr. Kallol Mandal, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ayan Basu, Learned Counsel appearing for the State. I have also heard Mr. Soumak Bera appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 (defacto complainant). I have also perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order being order No.17 dated 09th December, 2014 and have given a close and critical look into it. 3. The factual background giving rise to the instant application is that after being released on interim bail on 01.11.2013, the petitioner visited the house of the de-facto complainant with some unknown persons and threatened her with dire consequences if she did not withdraw the case. Consequently, she lodged three G.D. entries being Debra P.S. G.D. Entry No.589 dated 13.11.2013, Debra P.S. G.D. Entry No.1854 dated 28.11.2013 and Daspur P.S. G.D. Entry No.603 dated 13.01.2014. The defacto complainant filed an application praying for cancellation of bail of the accused/petitioner for which report was called for and after receipt of the report and on hearing both sides, the Learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted earlier to the present petitioner by passing the impugned order. 4. On hearing the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after carefully going through the decision reported in Sanjay Mehta vs. Jayanta Gupta and Others, 2009 (1) CHN 752 . I would like to say that it is now well-settled that cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to. Such position has also been reiterated in the cited decision Sanjay Mehta vs. Jayanta Gupta and others (Supra). It has also been observed by Their Lordships in this decision that an order of bail granted in however heinous a case may be cancelling the same is a diametrically opposite proposition. Such position has also been reiterated in the cited decision Sanjay Mehta vs. Jayanta Gupta and others (Supra). It has also been observed by Their Lordships in this decision that an order of bail granted in however heinous a case may be cancelling the same is a diametrically opposite proposition. It is also a trite proposition of the law that has governed the field of cancellation of bail that once a bail has been granted, it should not be lightly interfered with in the absence of very cogent and overwhelming circumstance since the order of cancelling the bail is harsh step. 5. So bearing in mind the above said legal position let me now look into the concerned G.D. entries. The G.D. Entry No.589 dated 13.11.2013 reflects that the accused Nirmal Roy went to the village of the informant and used filthy languages over the issue of previous grudge. There is no existence of Debra P.S. G.D. Entry No.1854 dated 28.11.2013 and it is reported that there was a G.D. Entry No.1254 dated 28.11.2013 of Debra P.S. which was also regarding threatening the informant with dire consequences and by using filthy languages. The Daspur P.S. G.D. Entry No.603 dated 13.01.2014 also relates to threatening the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. Out of those three G.D. Entries, two G.D. Entries namely 589 dated 13.11.2013 and 603 dated 13.01.2014 were not substantiated during enquiry. However, the G.D. Entry No.1254 dated 28.11.2013 was enquired into and N.C.R. was submitted against the petitioner/accused under Section 107 Cr. P.C. Looking into the said N.C.R. I find that the same story has been repeated. That is to say that it is alleged therein that the petitioner/accused Nirmal Roy threatened the complainant with dire consequences over family matters. Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that there is no clear picture reflected from any of the G.D. Entries as to the nature of the threat and how, when in which place and in what manner such threatening was made. In other words, the allegation made by the de-facto complainant is vague and of generalized character insufficient to act upon. Moreover, it is seen that the alleged incident of threatening which resulted in submission of the N.C.R. took place on 28.11.2013 while the order of cancellation of bail was passed on 9th December, 2014, i.e. after a period of more than one year. Moreover, it is seen that the alleged incident of threatening which resulted in submission of the N.C.R. took place on 28.11.2013 while the order of cancellation of bail was passed on 9th December, 2014, i.e. after a period of more than one year. Therefore, it cannot be said that the perception of threat was contemporaneous. 6. For the reasons stated above, the instant application is allowed and the impugned order being Order No. 17 dated 09.12.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3960 of 2013 cancelling the bail granted earlier in favour of the present petitioner is set aside. 7. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.