Rajib Paul vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 5214 Cal

   7
28.09.2021

rrc

CRR 1704 of 2021

In re : An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the matter of : Rajib Paul ..... petitioner Mr. Sekhar Basu Mr. Rajdeep Majumder Mr. Souvik Chatterjee Mr. Mayukh Mukheree Mr. Pritam Roy Mr. Shakti Halder ....For the petitioner

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, Ld. PP Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ....For the State

Mr. Debasish Roy Mr. Joydeep Biswas Mr. Abhra Jena .....For the opposite party no. 2

It appears that the bail prayer of the petitioner was granted

by the learned Magistrate in the Court below on July 19, 2021, in

connection with G.R. Case No. 1206 of 2021 under Sections

341/384/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On the prayer of the investigating agency, the bail of the

petitioner was cancelled by the learned Magistrate on July 28,

2021. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by

preferring a revisional application being Criminal Revision no. 27

of 2021 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldia, and

the learned Judge by an order dated August 6, 2021, affirmed the

order of the learned Magistrate.

It has been submitted by Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned senior

advocate appearing in support of the application that it is a case

where the investigating agency, ought to have conducted a

preliminary enquiry in terms of the judgment reported at (2014) 2

SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh). The formal

F.I.R. suggests that the alleged period of occurrence of the offence

was in between the year 2018 - 2019, whereas the F.I.R. was

lodged only on July 12, 2021. It is further submitted that having

regard to the nature of alleged offences, it was obligatory on the

part of the investigating agency to issue a notice under Section

41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherji, learned Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner. Mr. Mukherji

draws the attention of this Court to the order of the learned

Magistrate dated July 19, 2021 and submits that the bail was

granted by the learned Magistrate without calling for the case

diary.

He further submits that the petitioner is involved in a huge

racket of extortion in the Haldia Dock area from the transporters.

The complicity of the petitioner in the offences is apparent from

the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The money trail also indicates that a

huge amount of money has been collected and transferred to the

accounts of the petitioner. Mr. Mukherji submits that the learned

Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge in the Court

below was justified in cancelling the bail of the petitioner when it

was found that the petitioner was involved in a crime having huge

financial ramification and threatened the witnesses.

Mr. Debasish Roy, learned advocate appearing for the de-

facto complainant supports the case of the State. It has been

submitted by Mr. Roy that notice under Section 41A of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is issued only when the investigating

agency is satisfied that the arrest is not required for the

investigation. It cannot be said that the petitioner was absolutely

protected under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 from the arrest. He submits that the de-facto complainant

did not lodge the complaint earlier out of fear.

I am of the, prima facie, opinion that there has been a huge

delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is the case of the de-facto

complainant that the alleged extortion has been taking place since

long in broad day-light. In view of the nature of offences involved

in this case, I am of the prima facie opinion that the investigating

agency ought to have issued a notice under Section 41A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner.

In view of that, the operation of the order dated August 6,

2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldia,

Purba Medinipur affirming the order of the learned Magistrate

dated July 28, 2021 shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks

from date.

List this matter one week after the Puja vacation under the

same heading.

The pendency of the revisional application will not prevent

the investigating agency from interrogating the petitioner, and the

petitioner shall not have the jurisdiction of the local police station

without the permission from the officer-in-charge of the local

police station. The petitioner shall meet the investigating officer as

and when called for.

(Kausik Chanda, J.)