Kanchan Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for under sub section (2) of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate -in -charge, Birbhum at Suri on 24.7.2012 to the opposite parties No. 2 to 9 in connection with Sainthia Police Station Case No. 85 of 2012 dated 6.7.2012 under Section 381/ 120B of the I.P.C. and added Section 411 of the I.P.C. It would be convenient to give a short reference to the factual back ground of this application.
(2.) ON 6.7.2012, one F.I.R. was lodged with Sainthia Police Station by Sabyasachi Dutta alleging therein that in his and his inmates absence from 29.5.2012 to 6.7.2012, their most trusted servant Akshyay Pandey @ Rintu in collusion with other opposite parties committed theft of huge amount of golden and platinum ornaments as well as cash money of Rs. 82,000/ - by breaking open the iron chest. The opposite parties No. 2 to 9 were arrested in connection with the case and were taken into police custody also for some days and almost all the stolen ornaments and money were recovered from time to time from their custody. The investigation into the case is still going on. On 24.7.2012, all the opposite parties No. 2 to 9 were produced before the learned C.J.M. from Correctional Home. They prayed for bail. Upon consideration of the C.D. and materials therein, considering the fact that the opposite parties/accused were local people and there was no possibility of hampering of investigation into the case and upon submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that all stolen articles were recovered already, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to the opposite parties No. 2 to 9 with a condition that they (excepting the lady accused) should report the I.O. of the case once in a week.
(3.) THE defacto complainant has taken out this application for cancellation of bail on 14th September, 2012, i.e., almost 50 days after passing of the order by the learned Magistrate mainly on the following grounds; a) that the learned Magistrate did not apply judicial mind at all and perused the C.D. with attention and passed the order basing on oral submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that all stolen articles were recovered; b) that the learned Court did not consider that the trust of the defacto complainant was betrayed by a man who had been serving for the defacto complainant for many years and that the way the offence was committed, was no doubt, of serious in nature; and c) that the post bail conduct of the opposite parties was also blame worthy.;