- (1.) By this application under Sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner being the State of West Bengal seeks to challenge the order dated 9.8.2001 and 23.8.2001 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with Watgange P. S. Case No. 153/2001 granting ad-interim bail to the two accused/opposite parties being Noor Ahmed and Subrata Hazra on the very first day of their production under arrest before the said Court.
(2.) Case in brief is that one Rajiv Agarwal being the informant of this case is the Managing Director of Tirupati Vancom Private Ltd. having its registered office at 1, Rawdon Street, Calcutta-17. He lodged a written complaint before the said Police Station on 9.8.2001 against the opposite parties making serious allegations which prima facie constitute offences under Sections 386/387/114, I. P. C. In view of facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint, allegations appear to be of extremely serious nature. On the basis of the said complaint aforesaid case/FIR was registered at the said Police Station. Pursuant to the said complaint, Investigation Officer took up investigation and recorded statements of some witnesses and arrested two opposite parties/accused on 9.8.2001 and produced them before the learned S. D. J. M. with a prayer to remand them to police custody for 14 days. Learned S. D. J. M. on perusal of the FIR, Case Diary and the remand report rejected the prayer of the I. O. for police custody. Ld. S. D. J. M. was of the further view that the allegations made against opposite party merely constitute breach of contract. Dispute between the parties is of civil nature and hence it does not constitute any offence at all and accordingly, directed that "Both the accused persons may find bail of Rs. 4,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 2,000/- each with condition to meet the I. O. once a week till 23.8.2001. " "This order dated 9.8.2001 reads as under:- "Perused the FIR Accused No. (1) & (2) are brought under arrest and taken into custody, who are named in FIR. I. O. prays for P. C. till 22.8.2001 C. D. is produced. Bail petitions are filed on behalf of accused No. (1) (2). Perused the forwarding report and the C. D. Bail prayer is opposed by Learned A. P. P. It appears on perusal of all materials on record that there is an agreement between the parties over export of certain items and the point of controversy between the parties is the rate to be charged. The de facto complaint i. e. the 1st party could not but agree to the terms and conditions of the contract. According to the agreement all disputes shall be referred to arbitrator. The demand of money of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered for the de facto complaint as per agreement. So there is no element of the offence of extortion. It is hereby breach of contract which is civil in nature. Considering this is the prayer for P. C. is rejected. Both the accused persons may find interim bail of Rs. 4000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 2000/- with condition to meet the I. O. once in a week till 23.8.2001. Call for C. D. Return the C. D. "
(3.) Again by an order dated 23.8.2001 Learned S. D. J. M. rejected the prayer of the I. O. for cancellation of bail of the opposite parties and extended the interim bail till 24.9.2001. Said order dated 23.8.2001 reads as under:- "Seen the prayer of I. O. forwarded by the D. C. D. P. who prays for cancellation of A. I. bail of accused Nos. 1 & 2 and taking them into custody and remanded to 14 days police custody on the ground stated therein. C. D. is produced by I. O. Petitions are filed on behalf of accused Nos. 1 & 2 and praying for confirmation of A. I. bail and withdrawing the condition. Heard. These prayers from both sides. As there are allegations of threatening against these accused persons from the side of the prosecution I am unable to confirm A. I. bail and bail condition of these accused. Hence such prayer is rejected. However, as these accused are to meet the I. O. once in every week the work of investigation of the case would not suffer. So, I am not in favour of cancelling bail order of the same accused. Hence, interim bail of these accused is extended till 24.9.2001 and they will continue to meet the I. O. once in every week till said date. Call for C. D. again. ";