Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) In this appeal the questions need to be decided whether (i) the Writ Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is empowered to grant interim bail and anticipatory bail to an accused in a Criminal Proceeding which is inter alia challenged in a writ petition lot quashing the same, (ii) If it is held that such power is conferred on the Writ Court whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Trial Judge was justified in granting such interim bail and Anticipatory Bail during the pendency of the Writ Application. Let us, therefore, deal with the first question whether the Writ Court has the power to grant interim bail or anticipatory bail to an accused in a pending Writ Application, as noted hereinearlier which has been filed inter alia for quashing of a Criminal, Proceeding initiated against the, accused writ petitioner. Before we proceed further we keep it on record that in the Writ Application, the writ petitioner/respondent has inter alia prayed for a declaration that the purported investigation made on the basis of the FIRs and complaints mentioned in the writ application are without jurisdiction, ultra vires and null and void and the State of West Bengal and its other officers have no power, authority of jurisdiction to continue with the same and for quashing the criminal cases initiated on the basis of FIRs dated 25th January, 2001, 7th February, 2001 and 4th March, 2001 respectively. The interim reliefs as prayed r by the tint petitioner/respondent in the Writ Application are as follows (g) The petitioner may be released on bail in all the ah said three cases pending the disposal of this writ application on such terms and conditions so this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper: (h) Injunction restraining the respondents, each of them, their men agents and subordinates from proceeding further on the basis of the said three FIRs dated 7th February. 2001, 15th January 01 and 11th March. 2001 respectively. (Emphasis Supplied)
(2.) From the prayer (g) of the Writ Petition as mentioned above it appears to us that prayers were made by the writ petitioner/respondent to release him on bail in respect of three Criminal Cases pending disposal of the Writ Applications on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem fit and proper. By an order dated 12th of April, 2001 which is now under challenge in this appeal a learned Judge of this Court passed an order granting bail to the writ petitioner/respondent pending disposal of the writ application on the terms and conditions as imposed by the learned Judge in the impugned order. While granting bail during the pendency of the Writ Application, the learned Judge in the impugned order made the following directions:- "1. Let affidavit-in-opposition to this application be within weeks as prayed for by the learned Counsel appearing as as junior to the learned Public Prosecutor. Affidavit-in-Reply thereto be file within five week thereafter and let this matter stand adjourned five weeks hence. 2. The petitioner shall be enlarged bail in respect of cases initiated or :o be initiated on the basis of the subject three First Information Reports upon execution of a Bail bond of Rs. 1.00.000/- by him and by one surety. In the event, one surety is not available who can execute a Bait bond of Rs. 1.00.000/- it shall be open to the petitioner to obtain more than one surety to cover the amount. 3. The petitioner shall not leave Calcutta without express leave of this Court. 4. The petitioner shall report to the respondent No. 4 at 4 00 p.m. every Wednesday and shall make himself available for further questioning by the respondent No. 4 until 6.00 p.m. of the same date. 5. In the event. during course of further investigation any prima facie evidence of complaints of the petitioner in respect of the matters complained of comes to the knowledge of the Investigating Authority, leave is orated to the Investigating Authority to apply to this Court for re-arrest of the petitioner. (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) We have carefully examined the directions made by the learned Judge in the impugned order. After carefully examining the impugned order and the aforesaid directions we find that although a prayer to the Writ Application was made by the writ petitioner/respondent for an order of injunction entraining the appellants and their subordinates from proceeding further on the basis of three FIRs dated 15th of January, 2001, 7th of February, 2001 and 4th of March, 2001 respectively the learned Judge has not passed any order granting an interim order of injunction in the manner as prayed for in the writ application. That is to say the Criminal Proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner/respondent have not been stayed by the learned Judge nor the same have been quashed even at the initial stage. There is another aspect, which is also to be noted at this stage. From a plain reading of the direction No. 2 made by the learned Judge in the impugned order, we find that the writ petitioner/respondent has been enlarged on bail in respect of bases initiated or to be initiated on the basis of the subject three FIRs upon execution of a Bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- by him and by one surety. From this direction there is no doubt in our mind that the learned Judge while granting interim bail to the writ petitioner/respondent has also granted anticipatory bail to the writ petitioner/respondent during the pendency of the Writ Application. keeping these two directions in mind let us now proceed to consider the facts of this case which led the State of West Bengal and its officers to file this appeal. The facts are as follows:- The writ petitioner/respondent is a Director of M/s. Sree Bahubali International Limited, having its registered office at 12, India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700 001, (hereinafter referred to as the "said company") The said company is a member of National Stock Exchange and National Security Depository Limited (in short NSDL). People used to come the said company to open their Demat Accounts and the said company after verifying the particulars of the concerned persons, opens the demit accounts on the basis of the guidelines time to time of NSDL. The Depository Act, 1996 has been enacted to provide for Regulation of Depositories Insecurities and for matter concerned therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2 deals with cognisance of offences by the Courts. Section 17 deals with the rights and obligations of the depositories etc. Section 19 deals with the power of Board to give directions in certain cases. Chapter 5 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Depositories & Participants) Regulation, 1996 deals with the rights and obligations of depositories participants, issuers, manner of surrender of security and creation of pledge and hypothecation. Regulations No. 64 to 69 of the said Regulations are important which deal with kinds of irregularities and illegalities made by the depositories. Some time on 1st February, 2001 the said company received a letter from the Detective Department Lalbazar, Calcutta Police, calling for certain documents from the writ petitioner; respondent. On 14th of February, 2001 the said company received a letter from Hare Street Police Station whereby the said company was directed to send someone in person to see the Investigation Officer with original documents. On 27th of February, 2001, two police personnel came from Lalbazar, Kolkata and requested the writ petitioner/respondent to accompany them to Lalbazar for some further interrogations at about 5.30 p.m. On 27th of February, 2001 the petitioner was informed that he was taken into custody and a memo of arrest was handed over to him. Thereafter, the writ petitioner/respondent caused to make application for obtaining certified copy of the complaint and the FIR and obtained the same. According to the writ petitioner/respondent he was not involved in any way with Section G/D D/case No. C/114/2001 dated 7th of February, 2001 under Sections 1208/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the writ petitioner/respondent in the writ application the allegations made in the complaint as a whole and even accepting the same at their face value, no case against the respondent' writ petitioner having been made out, the impugned proceeding being case No. 114/2001 is liable to be quashed. In the writ petition it has also been alleged that the writ petitioner/respondent in connection with the said FIR was not granted bail and he was still in jail custody. The writ petitioner/respondent while in police custody, on 12th Marcro/2001 was again produced ill connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 41/2001 and he was produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same dale and the writ petitioner/respondent was sent to police custody in connection with the said Park Street Police Station case. The writ petitioner/respondent; caused lo make an application for obtaining certified copy of the complaint and the FIR and obtained the same. It also appears from the writ petition that on the basis of the said complaint dated 16th of January, 2001 FIR was lodged under Sections 120B/420/417/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code on 25th of January, 2001. According to the petitioner/respondent, the allegations made in the complaint as a whole and accepting the same at their lace value, no case against the petitioner having been made out, the impugned proceeding being case No. 41/2001 is liable to be quashed. Again on the basis of a complaint the police authorities lodged a F.I.R. on 4th of March, 2001 and it was registered in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as Section P-2 case No. 52 dated 4th of March, 2001. Various grounds were taken in the writ application saying that no case was made out against the writ petitioner/respondent for arrest and detention of the petitioner from 27th February, 2001 and such arrest and detention of the writ petitioner/respondent from 27th February, 2001 was illegal, bad and without jurisdiction. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitioner/respond into moved the writ application praying for reliefs, which have already been quoted hereinearlier.;