Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Satrajit Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 3126 of 2018
With
CRAN 1 of 2020
CRAN 2 of 2022
Satrajit Roy
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Arindam Jana
Mr. Soumajit Chatterjee
Mr. Arhan Sengupta
..... Advocates
For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Dhireshpratay Singh
Mr. Tanmay Basu
Mr. Manoj Adak
..... Advocates
For the State : Mr. Imran Ali
Ms. Debjani Sahu
..... Advocates
Heard on : 06.07.2022
Judgment on : 19.07.2022
2
Jay Sengupta, J.:
1.
This is an application challenging an order dated 04.10.2018 passed
by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court,
Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in ST Case No. 3(4) 18 arising out of
Titagarh Police Station Case No. 538/2012 dated 15.09.2012.
2. On 15.09.2012 an FIR was lodged under Section 302 of the Penal
Code in relation to the death of the sister of the opposite party no. 2.
However, a charge sheet, dated 06.12.2012, was filed by the Investigating
Agency under Section 306 of the Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on
15.09.2012. After about 95 days of custody, he was granted bail on
21.12.2012. The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section
227 of the Code. On 16.02.2018 the learned Trial Court was pleased to turn
down such prayer. On 25.06.2018, the brother of the victim filed an
application for alteration of charge under Section 216 of the Code. By an
order dated 21.08.2018, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the
prayer of the opposite party no. 2 for alteration of the charge against the
petitioner from Section 306 of the Penal Code to Sections 302 and 376 of the
Penal Code. The accused petitioner challenged the said order by filing the
criminal revision being CRR No. 2533 of 2018. Although the matter was
fixed for hearing, no stay was granted. On 04.10.2018 the petitioner prayed
for adjournment, first on the ground of illness and secondly on the point of
pendency of the revisional application before the High Court. But, the
learned Trial Court refused to entertain the prayer and cancelled the bail of
the petitioner. The said order, dated 04.10.2018, is under challenge in this
revision. By an order dated 12.06.2019 this Court dismissed the earlier
revisional application being CRR No. 2533 of 2018.
3. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner,
submitted as follows. It was never the case of the prosecution that the
petitioner, after being granted bail in 2012, ever flouted any condition. Nor
was it the case of the prosecution that there existed any adverse report
against him regarding misuse of liberty or other conduct that could warrant
cancellation of bail. Secondly, although it is true that charges were altered
from Section 306 to Sections 302 and 376 of the Penal Code, if the bail
granted to the petitioner had to be cancelled, a proper opportunity of
hearing should have been granted. Although no stay was granted in the
earlier revision challenging the alteration charges, nevertheless the same
was still pending before this Court and propriety required that the learned
Trial Court waited for some time and granted an adjournment on the date of
the impugned order. It was also evident that on several dates the petitioner
was present before the learned Trial Court and that only on 04.10.2018, he
sought an adjournment. It had been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that before passing an order of cancellation of bail, a Court must
grant an opportunity of hearing to the accused. Refusal of hearing a person
before cancellation of bail amounts to violation of natural justice. On this,
reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji vs. State of Kerala, 2006 (2) SCC (Cri)
174 and Gurdev Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (2) SCC (Cri)
177. Therefore, the impugned order ought to be set aside and the petitioner
should be allowed to remain on the same bail. In any event, the petitioner
would attend the learned Trial Court regularly and in such event, the trial
may be expedited.
4. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, submitted as
follows. The present case involved very serious offences. In fact, this Court
already affirmed the alteration of charges to Sections 302 and 376 of the
Penal Code. In the interest of justice, this Court would be pleased to pass a
direction upon the learned Trial Court to conduct the trial of the case on a
day to day basis.
5. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2,
submitted as follows. The learned Trial Court granted bail to the petitioner
in 2002 in the case which was then being proceeded under Section 306 of
the Penal Code. In spite of there being 24 injuries on the dead body of the
victim, charge sheet was submitted only under Section 306 of the Penal
Code. At the time of grant of bail, the learned Public Prosecutor granted no
objection. The petitioner had been successful in avoiding the due process of
law. In the present stint, the accused had prayed for adjournment at least
on three days on the ground of pendency of the earlier revision before this
Court. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Deepak Yadav (supra) on the ground that if a bail was granted on bad
grounds, the same could be cancelled. Reliance was also placed on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Subodh Kumar Yadav vs.
State of Bihar & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 638 and Kamla Devi (supra). On the
ground that after securing stay order in this revision, the petitioner avoided
to attend the Court, the present revision deserved to be rejected. The
petitioner had left no stone unturned to delay the trial. The petitioner
suppressed material facts and distorted the same. Section 439 (2) of the
Code gave ample power to the Court granting bail or to a superior Court to
cancel a bail even suo motu. Lastly, for the ends of justice, the trial was also
required to be expedited.
6. I heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the revision petition, the case diary and the written notes filed.
7. This is an unfortunate case where despite there being sufficient
prima facie materials to attract charges of murder and rape, after
investigation a charge sheet was submitted only under Section 306 of the
Penal Code. The learned Trial Court too added to the confusion by accepting
the same. Thereafter, at the intervention of the victim's brother, the shroud
was removed and the learned Trial Court found merit in the proposition that
the charges should be altered to Sections 302 and 376 of the Penal Code.
However, this is only the context, but not the issue we are faced with in this
revision.
8. The accused petitioner had filed a revision being CRR No. 2533 of
2018 before this Court challenging the refusal to discharge him from the
case. Although no stay was granted, the matter remained pending. Quite
naturally, the petitioner prayed for time before the learned Trial Court. After
a few occasions since there was no stay granted by this Court, the learned
Trial Court turned down the petitioner's prayer for an adjournment and
cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner.
9. Admittedly, there was no allegation that the petitioner's post bail
conduct was bad or that the same warranted cancellation of bail.
10. Therefore, the case at hand boils down to whether the learned Trial
Court erred in cancelling the bail of the petitioner without giving a proper
hearing to the accused although a prayer was made for an adjournment not
only on the ground of illness of the accused, but also on the ground of
pendency of a revisional application before the High Court and a further
prayer was made to file a written objection.
11. Ordinarily, before a bail is cancelled, an accused should be heard. On
this, reliance is placed on P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji (supra).
12. It is true that mere pendency of a revisional application before a
superior Court without there being a stay granted in the same is no bar on
the trial Court to proceed with the matter. However, it all depends on facts
and circumstances of each case so as to see whether propriety would require
that the learned trial Court grants an adjournment on the ground of such
pendency.
13. In the present facts, when a revisional application was pending before
the High Court, the learned Trial Court erred in cancelling the petitioner's
bail without providing him a proper opportunity of hearing and without even
permitting him to file a written objection.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order, so far as it relates to
cancellation of the petitioner's bail, is set aside. However, the application for
cancellation of bail shall be heard afresh upon giving an opportunity to the
accused petitioner to be heard. The said exercise regarding hearing of the
application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner shall be concluded at the
earliest, preferably within three months from the date of communication of
this order. If the accused petitioner still fails to appear before the learned
Trial Court, it shall be open to the learned Trial Court to take necessary
coercive actions like issuing warrant of arrest. After disposal of such
application, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter and
conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties by fixing dates in terms of
Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
16. The connected applications, accordingly, stand disposed of.
17. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be delivered to
the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all
formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
P. Adak
