Sahadev Das Alias Sahadeb Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4965 Cal

Form J(1)       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                            Appellate Side


Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri


                          CRR 822 of 2022

                      Sahadev Das alias Sahadeb Das
                                   Vs.
                      The State of West Bengal & Anr.



             Mr. Ayan Basu
             Mr. Sandip Kumar Mondal
             Mr. Sumit Routh
                        ...for the petitioner

             Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta
                          ...for the State


Item No.15


Heard & Judgment on:        02.08.2022


Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

An order dated 2nd March, 2022 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, First Court at Kakdwip canceling an order

of bail in favour of the accused/petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner violated the conditions for bail is under challenge in the

instant criminal revision. For proper and effective disposal of this

revision it is necessary to state the following factual background:-

The opposite party No.2 /de facto complainant lodged a written

complaint on 3rd August, 2021 alleging, inter alia, that on 28 th July,

2021 at dead hours of night when the de facto complainant was alone

sleeping in her room the accused persons trespassed into the room of

the de facto complainant and committed rape upon her.

On the basis of the said complaint police registered Dholahat

Police Station Case No.284 dated 3rd August, 2021 against the

accused/petitioner. In course of investigation the petitioner was

arrested and subsequently he was enlarged on bail by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, 1 st Court, Kakdwip vide order dated 14 th

September, 2021 subject to the following conditions, viz., while on

bail the accused/petitioner will not make any attempt to influence and

tamper with the evidence. It is also directed that the

accused/petitioner will attend the Court on regular basis without any

default with further condition that the accused/petitioner shall not

enter the jurisdiction of Dholahat Police Station till the completion of

recording evidence of the victim /de facto complainant by the trial

Court. Subsequently, on 30 th January, 2022 the de facto complainant

lodged a complaint against the petitioner that the petitioner was

freely moving within the jurisdiction of Dholahat Police Station after

he was granted bail on 15th September, 2021 and he was threatening

the de facto complainant with dire consequences if the de facto

complainant fails to withdraw the written complaint filed by her againt

the accused.

On the basis of the said complaint police registered F.I.R. No.43

of 2022 under Sections 188/195A/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused/petitioner was arrested on 2 nd March, 2022. He

was granted bail by the trial Court considering the fact of long

detention of the accused in the Correctional Home since 31 st January,

2022.

Surprisingly enough, on the self-same date when in a case for

threatening and influencing the de facto complainant /petitioner to

withdraw the earlier case under Sections 458/376/120B of the Indian

Penal Code, his bail was cancelled in connection with Dholahat Police

Station Case No.284 dated 3rd August, 2021.

It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that

when bail was granted in favour of the petitioner in a subsequent case

having a specific allegation of threatening the de facto complainant,

how on the same day order of bail was cancelled by the same Court in

a previously instituted case under Sections 458/376/120B of the

Indian Penal Code on the ground of violation of condition of bail, viz.,

the accused was threatening the de facto complainant after entering

into the jurisdiction of Dholahat Police Station.

Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate for the State has supported the

impugned order dated 2nd March, 2022 on the ground that the bail

was granted in a subsequent case under Sections 188/195A/506 of

the Indian Penal Code considering the period of detention of the

accused. However, in respect of Dholahat Police Station Case No.284

dated 3rd August, 2021, the learned trial Judge cancelled the bail

absolutely on different ground on prima facie satisfaction that the

accused violated the condition for bail by entering into the jurisdiction

of Dholahat Police Station and threatening the de facto complainant.

Mr. Sengupta, learned P.P.-in-charge has submitted a report of

service of notice of the instant proceeding through police as directed

by this Court in its previous order. The report be kept with the

record.

I have carefully perused the entire materials on record.

Strangely enough the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2022 was

passed without giving opportunity to the accused or his authorized

representative on being heard. The learned trial Judge did not feel it

prudent to consider the case diary of Dholahat Police Station Case

No.43 of 2022. From the order sheet it is not ascertained as to

whether the learned trial Judge came to a prima facie satisfaction that

the accused had really violated the condition for bail by entering into

the jurisdiction of Dholahat Police Station and allegedly threatening

the de facto complainant. It is needless to say that very cogent and

overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing

cancellation of bail already granted. Of course, interference or

attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice

by influencing the witnesses or threatening the de facto complainant

with dire consequences if she did not withdraw her complaint in a

previously instituted case are cogent and overwhelming circumstances

where bail can be granted but there must be satisfaction to the effect

in the order passed by the Court which granted bail to the accused or

by the Court exercising power under Section 439(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Dolat Ram and Others versus State of Haryana reported in

(1995) 1 SCC 349 and X versus State of Telangana and another

reported in (2018) 16 SCC 511 may be relied on in this regard.

On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the

learned trial Judge did not give the opportunity of hearing to the

accused. He did not peruse the case diary of the subsequent case

instituted against the accused under Sections 188/195A/506 of the

Indian Penal Code. He did not call for the case diary of both the cases.

Only on the basis of oral submission made on behalf of the accused

his prayer for bail was cancelled on the ground that he violated the

conditions for bail.

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the

impugned order dated 2nd March, 2022 was passed without

considering the relevant materials which are necessary for prima

facie satisfaction of the trial Court. In view of such circumstances, the

impugned order suffers from patent illegality and is, therefore, set

aside.

The learned trial Judge is specifically directed to rehear the

Criminal Misc. Case No.58 of 2022 after giving an opportunity to the

accused /petitioner of hearing. The learned trial Judge is also directed

to take into consideration that on 2nd March, 2022 itself he granted

bail to the accused in the subsequent case under Sections

188/195A/506 of the Indian Penal Code. He is also directed to

consider the case diary of both the cases.

The learned trial Judge is at liberty to rehear the Criminal Misc.

Case No.58 of 2022 along with an application for bail, if any, that may

be filed by the accused after disposal of the instant criminal revision.

With the above order the instant revision is disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)