Petitioner filed application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted earlier. Court held that private opposite party complied with conditions after correcting cause title mistake, thus no cancellation relay could be granted.
No relief granted; application for cancellation of anticipatory bail dismissed.
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.
20.04.2022 Serial no.104 Dd
CRM (DB) 124 of 2022
In re : An Application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-And-
In the matter of : Kaushik Kumar Kar
… …Petitioner
Mr. Shataroop Purokayastha,
Mr. Jagriti Bhattacharya, Advocate … … For the Petitioner
Mr. Binay Panda,
Mr. Saurindra Mahapatra, Advocate
… …For the State
Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta,
Mr. Shiladitya Barma, Advocates .. …For the private op no. 2
Petitioner seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the order dated October 4, 2021.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of granting the anticipatory bail.
Learned advocate appearing for the State refers to the written instruction.
Learned advocate appearing for the private opposite party submits that there was a mistake in the cause title relating to the name of the petitioner.
The order was passed on October 4, 2021 which was the last date of the long vacation. Immediately on reopening the private opposite party filed an application
2
being CRAN 1 of 2021 which was disposed of on February 3, 2022 extending the time period for compliance. The private opposite party complied with the conditions granting anticipatory bail thereafter.
There are materials on record to establish that the private opposite party complied with the order granting anticipatory bail subsequent to February 3, 2022. There was a mistake in the cause title of the petition and, therefore, the same prevented the private opposite party for complying with the order dated October 4, 2021. This explanation for ends of justice is accepted.
In such view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
CRM (DB) 124 of 2022 is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted on October 4, 2021 should be cancelled due to alleged non-compliance with conditions.
Whether a mistake in the cause title of the petition prevented private opposite party from complying with bail conditions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kaushik Kumar Kar
State
Private Opposite Party No. 2
Debangsu Basak
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
