- (1.) In C.R.R. No. 228 of 2010, C.R.R. No. 324 of 2010 and C.R.R. No. 368 of 2010, the subject matter of challenge, are the orders passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Malda, whereby the Learned Judge while granting bail to the accuseds/husbands in connection with those cases, relating to the matrimonial offences, punishable under Sections 498A/494/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, directed them to pay maintenance to their respective wives. Whereas, in C.R.R. No. 373 of 2010 and in C.R.R. No. 4589 of 2009, the order of granting anticipatory bail by the self-same Court in connection with the cases relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, were under challenge on the ground while in the first case the husband was directed to maintain his wife, in the next case similar order was passed whereby the brother-in-law, i.e. the "Debor" was directed to maintain his sister-in-law, i.e. the "Boudi". Similarly, C.R.R. No. 551 of 2010 arises out of an order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Malda, where bail was granted to the petitioners, in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/448/379/436 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the condition of surrender of their respective Voter Identity Cards and Ration Cards and in C.R.R. No. 409 of 2010 an order passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kandi, granting bail to the petitioner in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 279/304/427 of the Indian Penal Code, was challenged on the ground the petitioner was directed to surrender his Driving License and it was directed till the disposal of the case he shall not be permitted to drive his vehicle. Lastly, in C.R.R. No. 770 of 2010 the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta, where the Learned Judge in granting bail to the petitioner in connection with a case relating to offence punishable under Sections 406/420/506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, directed him to repay the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. 3,08,000/ - to the defacto-complainant within a week from the date of his release. Furthermore, in all the aforesaid cases where the petitioners were enlarged on bail it was directed on their failure to comply with the impugned conditions their bail shall stand cancelled automatically and in cases where the petitioners were enlarged on anticipatory bail, the regular Court, i.e. the Courts of the respective Magistrate shall release them on regular bail upon their surrender in Court, if they fulfilled the condition subject to which the anticipatory bail was granted to them.
(2.) Heard Mr. Sanat Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner while Mr. Abhijit Addya, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 228 of 2010. Mr. Mosaraf Alam Sk., learned advocate for the petitioner while Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 324 of 2010. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioner while Ms. Minati Gomes, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 368 of 2010. Mr. Bipul Kumar Mondal, learned advocate for the petitioners while Mr. Swapan Kumar Mondal, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 4589 of 2009. Mr. Iresh Pal, learned advocate for the petitioner while Ms. Jharna Biswas, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 373 of 2010. Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioners while Ms. Parul Banerjee, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 551 of 2010. Mr. Arijit Dey, learned advocate for the petitioner while Mr. Kashem Ali Ahmed, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 409 of 2010 and Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjan Roy, learned advocate for the State and Mr. Amartha Ghosh, learned advocate for the defacto-complainant in connection with the C.R.R. No. 770 of 2010. Besides in C.R.R. No. 770 of 2010, in all other cases, in spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the defacto-complainant. The affidavit of service are with the records.
(3.) According to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused can be released on bail subject to the conditions specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code and similarly be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to the conditions enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 438 and Sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code.;