The Single Bench upheld the state's application to cancel bail. The court held that the respondents suppressed a material fact regarding the prior rejection of their bail plea by the jurisdictional court, necessitating cancellation.
Bail granted on November 9, 2021 is cancelled; respondents directed to surrender forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
22.12.2021 Serial no.57
Aloke Ct. No. 29
(Through Video Conference)
IA No. CRAN 1 of 2021 in
CRM 5455 of 2021
In the matter of : Md. Raja alias Jang Raja & Ors.
… …Petitioners
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. Shashanka Sekhar Saha, Advocate … … For the Petitioners Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld. PP Mr. Madhusudan Sur, ld. APP Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate
… … For the State
In re : IA No. CRAN 1 of 2021
By this application, the State seeks cancellation of the bail granted in favour of the opposite parties.
Affidavit called for by the earlier order filed in Court be taken on record.
On November 9, 2021, an order was passed by the High Court granting bail in favour of the opposite parties. On such date, the opposite party no. 3 filed a petition for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court which such prayer was rejected. The petitioner did not bring such fact to the notice of the Court on November 9, 2021.
Learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the opposite parties filed an application for grant of bail three months prior to November 9, 2021. On November 9, 2021, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties were not aware that the opposite party no. 3 filed an application for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, the High Court was not apprised on such fact.
Whatever may be the justification for conduct of the learned counsel for the opposite parties, the opposite party no. 3 no doubt filed an application for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court on November 9, 2021 and the same was rejected. Opposite parties were obliged to bring such fact to the notice of the High Court when
2
they were pressing the application for grant of bail filed three months earlier, before the High Court. The opposite parties not doing so, it must be said that the opposite parties were guilty of suppression of material fact before the High Court.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the bail granted on November, 9, 2021 needs to be cancelled.
That apart, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties draws the attention of the Court numerous criminal cases as against the opposite parties.
There are criminal antecedents of the opposite parties as appearing from the chart which the learned Advocate for the State relies upon.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the bail granted on November 9, 2021 needs to be cancelled and the same is accordingly cancelled.
Opposite parties will surrender forthwith before the jurisdictional Court.
IA No. CRAN 1 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail granted earlier needs to be cancelled when respondents suppressed material fact regarding prior rejection of bail by jurisdictional court.
State
Md. Raja alias Jang Raja & Ors.
Debangsu Basak
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
