This judgment dismissed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to a private opposite party. The Court held that there were no grounds to interfere with the lower court's order, noting the party was not the prime accused.
The application for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed (CRM-DB 853 of 2023).
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.
10.05.2023 32 Ct. No. 29 CHC
C.R.M.(DB) 853 of 2023
In Re:- An application for cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. And
In the matter of : Sasta Sundar Health Buddy Limited
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Mr. Abhinav Rakshit .…for the petitioner
Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Koushik Kundu .…for the State
Mr. Souma Subhra Ray, Ms. Susmita Mondal ….for the opposite party no.2
In assailment is the order no.03, dated February 14, 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore granting anticipatory bail to the private opposite party no.2 in Criminal Misc. Case No.308 of 2023.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is vitiated by perversity. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the impugned order. He submits that learned Judge is of the view that it was incumbent upon the police to arrest the private opposite party no.2. He highlights the fact that other co-accused were granted bail after substantial period of custody. He refers to the contents of the
2
First Information Report and submits that, the police prayed for further investigation and issuance of Warrant of Proclamation of Arrest as against the private opposite party.
Learned advocate appearing for the State refers to the materials in the case diary.
The private opposite party no.2 is represented.
The private opposite party no.2 was enlarged on anticipatory bail by the impugned order dated February 14, 2023.
While granting anticipatory bail, the learned Sessions Judge considered the allegation of the case as also the approach of the investigating agency and found that there was no reason for custodial interrogation of the private opposite party and proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the private opposite party.
As noted above, perversity of the impugned order is the ground canvassed in cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail.
The impugned order was passed on February 14, 2023. Charge-sheet was submitted on February 15, 2023. The private opposite party did not surrender till the time when the chargesheet was submitted. Consequently, the charge-sheet contains the assertion with regard to the private opposite party.
The impugned order contains reasons, albeit sketchy with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the private opposite party.
3
Apparently, the private opposite party was not found to
be the prime accused.
In such circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
CRM (DB) 853 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted to the opposite party should be cancelled on grounds of perversity.
Whether the impugned order granting bail is liable to be interfered with by the Court of Session.
Sasta Sundar Health Buddy Limited
State
Private Opposite Party no. 2
Debangsu Basak
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
