- (1.) This application under Section 439(2) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for cancellation of bail granted to Aninda Ray on 12.11.2009, the opposite party no. 2, has been filed by Debabrata Ray Choudhuri, the complainant in Jadavpur Police Station Case no. 791 of 2008 dated 12.12. 2008 under Sections 406/408/120B/34 of I.P.C., on the following grounds : i) that the accused has indulged and has been indulging in tampering with the investigation of the case; ii) that the accused has threatened the witness Chayanika Chakraborty; iii) that the accused has indulged in subverting the process of investigation in collusion with the erstwhile I.O.; iv) that the accused has been threatening the victim girl to withdraw the criminal cases under threat and coercion as stated hereinabove; v) that the accused has delayed the process of recovery of the ornaments from the date of filing of FIR i.e. December, 2008 to 4th May, 2010 by various ways and making misleading statements; vi) that the accused has abused the privilege granted by the Court and violated all the directions of the Learned Court specially directions of the Learned Sessions Judge dated 20.11.2009, the direction of Learned ACJM dated 21.11.2009 by instructing his advocate and handing over some documents allegedly written by the IO and obtained endorsement of IO for the purpose of misleading the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas Alipore, by instructing his lawyer to mislead the Learned Court that the ornaments were recovered but the de-facto complainant was not taking the ornaments though admittedly not a single piece of ornament was seized till 4th May, 2010; vii) that there are other evidence which shows that the accused has misused the privilege and violated all orders of the Learned Court and the directions of IO who has to communicate such directions apart from other means through sureties also; viii) that the accused has been leading an immoral life;
(2.) To appreciate the matter it would be expedient and appropriate to refer to the factual background, in short : The marriage between Debjani Chowdhury and Aninda Ray (hereinafter referred to as the O.P. No. 2) had taken place long 13 years ago according to Hindu rites and Customs. In their marriage, ornaments and Jewellary worth Rs. 15,00,000/- were given to Debjani by her parents. After marriage, they settled in Dublin, Ireland. The matrimonial bliss evaporated soon for various reasons and, ultimately, Debjani had to start living seperately. They also indulged themselves in various litigations. Debabrata Ray Choudhuri, father of Debjani initiated a Criminal case against the opposite party no. 2 and his parents which was registered as Jadavpur Police Station case no. 719(12) of 2008 under Sections 406/408/120B and 34 IPC. Debjani wanted to get her ornaments and Jewellary which was entrusted with the opposite party no. 2 but remained unsuccessful. She was allegedly threatened of dire consequences, humiliated and tortured by the opposite party no. 2 during her stay in Dublin as well as after her stay elsewhere. The parents of opposite party no. 2 appeared in the Court and obtained bail. The opposite party no. 2 while living in Dublin, filed an application under Section 438 IPC in this Court and obtained anticipatory bail, valid for a period of four weeks on 9.10.2009. On 26.10.2009, he appeared in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South) and prayed for regular bail. The learned Magistrate allowed ad interim bail of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each with conditions under Section 438(2) (I),(II) and (III) of the Cr.P.C. On 12.11.2009, the learned Magistrate, upon hearing of learned Counsels appearing for both the parties, confirmed the ad interim bail dated 26.10.2009 as no adverse materials could be detected against the opposite party no. 2. On 28.1.2011, this Criminal revision being no. CRR 1793 of 2011 has been filed by the de facto complainant Debabrata Ray Choudhuri praying for cancellation of bail dated 12.11.2009 in respect of opposite party no. 2 on the grounds mentioned earlier. Mr . Debabrata Ray Choudhuri, the learned Counsel who happens to be the de facto complainant of the Jadavpur Police Station case no. 791 of 2008 dated 12.12.2008 dated 12.12.2008 contended that the opposite party no. 2 obtained anticipatory bail by practicing fraud upon this Court. He contended that the opposite party no. 2 admittedly was a resident of Dublin at the relevant period of time when the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed. He suppressed the fact that he had been residing in Dublin on that particular date when the application for anticipatory bail was filed. This apart, Mr. Debabrata Ray Choudhuri contended that the opposite party no. 2 had no reason to apprehend that he would be arrested in connection with this case. Therefore, he by practicing fraud upon the Court obtained anticipatory bail.
(3.) Although within four corners of the petition by Mr. Debabrata Ray Choudhuri no such point i.e., practicing fraud upon Court, has been taken, Mr. Debabrata Ray Choudhuri put much trace on this point. Since this point is raised, this Court is saddled with the obligation to discuss this point. Mr. Ray Choudhuri contended that the opposite party no. 2 violated the conditions imposed by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail on 9.10.2009. He also violated the condition to the bail order passed on 26.10.2009 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. He left India before 26.10.2009. He also violated the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 20.11.2009 by not attending Court.;