- (1.) The applicant before us is the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge at Chinsurah in the district of Hooghly. She has come up with a prayer which reads as follows: An order for expunging/deleting the adverse remarks made against the Petitioner as contained in order dated 11.03.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Bench comprising the Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta and the Hon'ble Justice Raghunath Ray in CRM 293 of 2011 (Shri Debnath alias Debnarayan Bhandari v. State of West Bengal) and modifying/altering the direction to the learned Registrar General of this Hon'ble Court accordingly.
(2.) Paragraph 24 of her application is however restricted to a prayer as follows: Your Petitioner therefore submits that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to expunge the adverse remarks made against the Petitioner passed in CRM 293 of 2011 (Shri Debnath alias Debnarayan Bhandari v. State of West Bengal) so far as putting the same in her service records as that would seriously prejudice the Petitioner's service career.
(3.) Our order dated 11th March 2011 reads as follows: The Petitioner before us is the husband of the complainant wife. A bare perusal of the complaint would indicate that the allegations primarily are directed against the father-in-law. The conduct of the father-in-law was the cause of discontent. When the complainant raised her voice against the conduct of the father-in-law other members of the family allegedly made a common cause against her. Surprisingly, the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge granted the prayer of the father-in-law amongst others but withheld the prayer of the husband. This sort of slipshod way of disposing of the matters is not acceptable. Concessions on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor is of no significance. The learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Hooghly, Sri R. Chattopadhyay, is cautioned to be more careful in future in discharging his judicial duty. For the reasons already indicated, there is no reason why the prayer of the husband should be rejected. Accordingly, his prayer is allowed on the following terms and conditions. (i) The Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) No direct or indirect threat or any inducement would be made to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. This order of anticipatory bail would remain operative for a period of 30 (thirty) days from date. He shall be entitled to apply for regular bail. If and when such an application is made, the same shall be considered on its own merit by the appropriate regular court. This application is, thus, disposed of. The learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the said Sri R. Chattopadhyay, Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Hooghly, and to keep a note of this order in his service records for future reference.;