Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Criminal Procedure; vs In Re : Smt. Upanita Das on 9 September, 2021
09.09.2021
Item no.28
Court No.30
Avijit Mitra
C.R.M. 9081 of 2019 (through video conference)
In Re:- An application under Section 439(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;
And
In Re : Smt. Upanita Das
.... Petitioner
Mr. Sabir Ahmed,
Mr. Abhijit Kumar Adhyay,
Ms. Sudeshna Basu Thakur
....for the petitioner
Md. Anwar Hossain,
Mr. N.P. Agarwala
Ms. Ratna Ghosh
...for the State
Mr. Sachit Talukdar,
Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy
...for the opposite party no.2
The present application has been preferred under
Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,
CrPC) inter alia praying for cancellation of bail granted to the
opposite party no.2, namely, Arunava Das (in short,
Arunava) on 7th June, 2013.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that on the
basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, namely,
Upanita Das (in short, Upanita) Chandannagore Police
Station Case No.109 of 2013 dated 18th May, 2013 under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short,
IPC) was registered. In connection with the same, Arunava
preferred an application for anticipatory bail which was
allowed by an order dated 7 th June, 2013. Arunava thereafter
appeared before the learned Court below and obtained
regular bail. Subsequent thereto, Upanita filed a further
application for cancellation of bail being CRM 6602 of 2016
which was allowed by an order dated 16 th November, 2016.
Aggrieved by the said order, Arunava and another preferred a
Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the same was disposed of by an order dated 13 th July, 2017
setting aside the order dated 16th November, 2016.
Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate appearing for Upanita
submits that Arunava has repeatedly violated the conditions
of Section 438(2) of the Code and went abroad without
seeking prior permission from the Court. An application was
submitted by Arunava in G.R. 593A/13 arising out of
Chandannagore Police Station Case No.109 of 2013 seeking
permission to leave the country for joining a school at
Belgium. Even though such prayer was rejected by an order
dated 14th March, 2018, Arunava left India.
He further submits that Arunava forged the certificate
of B.Ed. degree of Upanita. A complaint lodged to that effect
by Upanita was registered as Netaji Nagar Police Station
Case No.88 of 2018. Upon completion of investigation charge
sheet was submitted in the same showing Arunava as
absconding. He was ultimately arrested from New Delhi
airport on 22nd February, 2020, as would be explicit from the
forwarding report of the investigating officer dated 23 rd
February, 2020. Let the said document, as produced, be kept
on record.
Mr. Ahmed argues that there is every likelihood that
Arunava would flee to some other country. He has also
misused his liberty and violated the order of this court. Such
conduct of Arunava warrants cancellation of bail granted in
his favour.
Mr. Talukdar, learned advocate appearing for
Arunava, however, disputes the contention of Mr. Ahmed
and submits that the order cancelling the bail dated 16 th
November, 2016 was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and as such the allegations that Arunava left the country in
violation of the conditions contained in the order dated 7 th
June, 2013 do not survive.
He further submits that the allegations levelled
against Arunava in Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No.88 of
2018 are absolutely unfounded. Arunava had always acted
in strict compliance of the orders passed by the competent
forum.
Answering a query of this Court, Mr. Talukdar
submits that Arunava is presently residing in the State of
West Bengal. He has attended the learned Court below on
the dates specified for hearing. Presently, the said case is
fixed for arguments. In support of such contention he has
drawn the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the
learned Court below as annexed to this application.
In reply, Mr. Ahmed disputes the fact that Arunava
was present before the learned Court below on all the dates
as specified for hearing.
It is quite well-settled that rejection of bail stands on
one footing but 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, moreso when, the person had
not misused his/her liberty.
In the present case, Arunava is on bail for a
considerable length of time. The trial is on the verge of
conclusion and in fact, date has been fixed for final
arguments. Considering such stage of trial and as Arunava is
presently residing in the State of West Bengal, we do not
think it would be appropriate to cancel Arunava's bail at this
stage. The prayer for cancellation of Arunava's bail is, thus,
refused.
However, it is made clear that Arunava shall not leave
the State of West Bengal till judgment is delivered in G.R.
Case No.593(A) of 2013 arising out of Chandannagore Police
Station Case no. 109 of 2013 dated 18 th May, 2013 under
Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Arunava shall also submit his passport to the Officer-
in-Charge, Chandannagore Police Station within a week from
date and the said officer shall give a proper receipt to
Arunava. After disposal of the G.R. Case No.593 (A) of 2013,
Arunava would be at liberty to approach the Officer-in-
Charge, Chandannagore Police Station and the said officer
shall return the passport to Arunava upon obtaining a
proper receipt.
With the above observations and directions, the
application being CRM 9081 of 2019 is disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
