Calcutta High Court: While deciding a revision petition seeking cancellation of bail, a single-judge bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul), JJ observed that the abuse of process of law but refused to cancel the bail granted to the accused at this stage and allowed the trial court to continue with the trial proceedings. The Court criticized the trial court and stated that “it is the duty of the Court to ensure justice and not rely totally on the submission of either party.”
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed a revision petition against an order dated 09-12-2019 passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite parties-accused under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The petitioner’s case is that on 24-08-2019, the opposite parties and their associates unlawfully entered her house, ransacked it, assaulted her, her family members, and violated her privacy. A criminal case was registered against the accused under various offenses under the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including Sections 448/323/326/308/379/427/354B/506/34. The bail had been granted to the opposite parties by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide orders dated 30-08-2019 and 04-09-2019.
Contentions
The petitioner contended that the opposite parties, after being released on bail, had threatened her and pressured her to drop the case. The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, emphasizing that she would suffer irreparable loss and injury unless the bail orders were cancelled.
Court's Observation and Verdict
The Court observed that the petitioner had suffered injuries during the incident, and the case was registered promptly after the attack. The Court further observed that the accused was granted bail without objections from the Additional Public Prosecutor.
The Court criticized the reliance on the Additional Public Prosecutor’s (APP) submission without considering the injury report, which was not available in the case diary at the time of bail proceedings.
“It is unfortunate that considering the nature of offences alleged, the Court relied upon the submission of the APP, without calling for the injury report. It is the duty of the Court to ensure justice and not rely totally on the submission of either party.”
The Court acknowledged the abuse of process of law, however considering the present circumstances and the interest of justice refused to cancel the bail at this stage. The Court noted that a charge sheet had been filed for certain offenses and the trial was set to proceed expeditiously.
The Court dismissed the revision petition, allowing the trial court to proceed with the trial and vacated any interim orders that might have been in place.
[Bithika Sil v. Kartick Paik, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2282, order dated 08-08-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Saurav Basu, Ms. Priyanka Mondal, Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Debasis Kar, Counsel for the Opposite Party 1 to 5
Ms. Rita Datta, Counsel for the State
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
