Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bithika Sil vs Kartick Paik & Ors on 8 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 198 of 2020
Bithika Sil
Vs.
Kartick Paik & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arindam Sen,
Mr. Saurav Basu,
Ms. Priyanka Mondal,
Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Debasis Kar.
nos. 1 to 5
For the State : Ms. Rita Datta.
Heard on : 17.07.2023
Judgment on : 08.08.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1.
The present revision has been preferred against an order dated
09.12.2019 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24 Parganas
(North), in connection with Cri. Misc. Case No. 05/2019, rejecting
thereby the prayer of the petitioner (i.e. de facto complainant) for
cancellation of bail of the opposite parties made under Section 439(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, by not interfering with the impugned
orders of granting bail to the opposite parties, vide orders dated
30.08.2019 and 04.09.2019 so passed by the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North) under Section 437
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with New Barrackpore
Police Station Case No. 318/2019 dated 24.08.2019 culminating into
G.R. Case No. 4820/19 presently pending before the Court of the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas
(North) for commission of offence under Sections
448/323/326/308/379/427/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner/de facto complainant's case is that on 24.08.2019 at
about 1 p.m. the opposite parties/accused persons Nos. 1 to 4 along with
one Binoy Paik son of Kedar Paik, Biswa Paik and Asish Paik, both sons
of Late Manish Paik and Smt. Dipa Paik wife of Benoy Paik along with
about 200 unholy associates suddenly attacked the house of the
complainant pursuant to previous animosity and started ransacking the
said house. Further, all the miscreants as named started removing
valuable articles of the complainant and when the complainant and her
family members resisted the said miscreants they conjointly pushed the
complainant to the floor and started assaulting her with bamboo sticks
and iron rods and even inflicted injury on her head as a result of which
the complainant sustained severe head injury with profuse bleeding from
the same. And by taking advantage of the helpless condition of the
complainant the said miscreants including the opposite parties/accused
persons herein violated her privacy. The husband of the complainant,
Asim Sil, tried to rescue the complainant but the said opposite
parties/accused persons physically assaulted him and as a result he also
sustained injury on his head and cut injury on his cheeks and chin.
Further, they attempted to outrage the modesty of the sister-in-law of the
complainant and even the father-in-law of the complainant aged about
82 years was also not spared. He also sustained injury on his ears. After
that the complainant was taken to New Barrackpore Police Station by her
husband Asim Sil wherefrom she was shifted to Ghola Hospital where
she was treated by the doctor and eight stitches were put over the cut
injury on her head.
3. That immediately the facts narrated hereinabove were reduced in
writing and the letter of complaint was submitted before the Officer-in-
Charge of New Barrackpore Police Station giving rise to New Barrackpore
Police Station Case No. 318/2019 dated 24.08.2019 culminating into
G.R. Case No. 4820/19 presently pending before the Court of the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas
(North) against opposite parties/accused persons herein along with one
Binoy Paik son of Kedar Paik, Biswa Paik and Asish Paik, both sons of
Late Manish Paik and Smt. Dipa Paik wife of Benoy Paik and other 200
persons for commission of offence under Sections
448/323/326/308/379/427/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. That subsequently it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that on
30.08.2019 the opposite party/accused person no. 1 was brought under
arrest by the investigating agency before the Court of the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North)
and on the same day he was released on bail by the said Court on the
ground that the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised no
objection in respect of granting bail to the opposite parties/accused
person No. 1 and drawing an unreasonable conclusion that the
dispute cropped up concerning civil subject matter and there are
case and counter case between the parties.
5. On 04.09.2019 the opposite parties/accused person Nos. 2 to 5
surrendered before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North) and once again the
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised no objection and considering
the same reasons and more particularly the fact of enlarging the opposite
parties/accused person No. 1 on bail, they were also released on bail on
the selfsame day by the said Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (North).
6. The petitioner then preferred an application under Section 439(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of the Learned Sessions
Judge, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) praying inter alia for cancellation of
bail so granted to the opposite parties/accused persons nos. 1 to 5 on
30.08.2019 and 04.09.2019, giving rise to Cri. Misc. Case No. 05/2019.
By an order dated 09.12.2019, the Learned Sessions Judge, Barasat, 24
Parganas (North) turned down the said prayer of the petitioner for
cancellation of bail of the opposite parties/accused persons nos. 1 to 5.
7. It is submitted that when the opposite parties/accused persons nos. 1
to 5 were released on bail in connection with the present case, they
started threatening the complainant with dire consequences and started
pressurizing her not to pursue the present case any further and the
aforesaid fact has already been diarized with the New Barrackpore Police
Station giving rise to G.D. Entry No. 2275 dated 17.10.2019.
8. It is stated that unless the bail so granted to the opposite
parties/accused persons nos. 1 to 5 by orders dated 30.08.2019 and
04.09.2019 are cancelled by this Hon'ble Court by interfering with the
impugned order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Learned Sessions
Judge, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) in connection with Cri. Misc. Case
No. 05/2019 germane from the order dated 30.08.2019 and 04.09.2019
and all the aforesaid orders are set aside, the petitioner would suffer
irreparable loss and injury.
9. It is further stated that at the time of filing the revision, the
investigation was still not complete.
10. Ms. Rita Dutta, Learned counsel for the State has placed the case
diary.
11. On perusal of the materials on record including the case diary, it
appears that the petitioner suffered scalp injury and was also given
eight stitches. The case was registered on 24.08.2019. The victim
was medically examined and treated on 24.08.2019 itself.
12. Accused Kartick Paik was produced on 30.08.2019 and granted
bail on the same day as the learned APP raised no objection.
13. 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. As to why the
injury report was still not in the case diary is best known to the
prosecution. Even on 04.09.2019, when the learned Sessions Judge
considered and rejected the prayer for cancellation of bail, there was
no injury report in the case diary as noted by the Sessions Judge,
though as of now it's part of the case diary at page 21, as seen by
this Court.
14. Charge sheet has now been filed being number 451/2019 on
31.12.2020 for offence punishable under Sections 448/325/506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. Though at that stage there has been prima facie
abuse of the process of law/Court before the Trial Court as discussed,
but considering the present circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
grant the relief prayed for at this stage in the interest of justice.
15. The authorities concerned will proceed in accordance with law in
respect of any subsequent developments.
16. CRR 198 of 2020 is accordingly dismissed.
17. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the case
expeditiously.
18. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
21. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
