- (1.) THIS Rule is a the instance of the Superintendent and remembrance of Legal Affairs, Government of West Bengal, on behalf of the State of West Bengal, for cancelling art order" of bail dated the 13th December, 1973 passed by Sri S. Ahmed, Sessions judge-in-charge, Alipore, District, 24-Parganas in favour of the accused opposite-party, Amiya Kumar Roy choudhury alias Dadaji, and for directing the accused opposite-party to be remanded to police custody instead of jail custody as was ordered by Sri S. N. , som, Police Magistrate, Alipore OK 11-12-73.
(2.) THE facts leading on to the rule can be put in a short compass. The accused opposite-party was arrested by the police on the 11th December, 19755 in connection with the Tollygunge P. S. Case No. 734 dated 14. 9. 73 under sections 120b/420/467/471 Indian Penal Code and was produced before the learned police Magistrate at Alipore on the same date. The co-accused, Sm. Anjali banerji, was allowed bail but the prayed for bail pressed on behalf of the accused-opposite party was rejected the learned Police Magistrate by the same order remanded the accused opposite-party to jail custody till 24. 12. 73. A revisional application therefore was preferred by the accused opposite-party before the learned sessions Judge at Alipore and Sri S. Ahmad sessions Judge-in-charge, Alipore, by his order dated the 13th December 1973 admitted the application, called for the records of the lower court as well as the record of Title Suit No. 38 of 1973 of the 3rd Court of the Subordinate Judge, alipore, and also the memo of evidence, if any. By the same order he allowed the prayer for interim bail and directed the accused-opposite party to be released on a bail of Rs. 10,0001- with two sureties of Rs, 5,0001 - each, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District magistrate Judicial, Alipore on condition that the opposite-party shall confine himself within his own house and shall not move without the permission of the court, with the further direction that he was to appear in person on the date of hearing before the court, which was fixed on 21. 12. 73. These orders were impugned by the Superintendent and remembrance of Legal Affairs, West bengal and the present Rule was issued on 14. 12. 73.
(3.) MR. Rajesh Chandra Ghosh, deputy Legal Remembrance, State of west Bengal (with Mr. Promode ranjan Roy, Junior Government Advocate)appearing in support of the Rule made a submission of two dimensions. Firstly, that the order passed by the learned sessions Judge-in Charge, Alipore, 24-Parganas, has been bad and improper, inasmuch as, amongst others, there should have been no interim order passed in an application for bail, arising out of a case involving serious offences, and before finally hearing it that the conditions imposed on such bail are not also sufficient; that no direction even was given as to how the accused opposite-party was to be interrogated by the i. O. ; and there in no finding at all that the court was satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused opposite-party is not guilty of any offence coming within the bounds of Section 497 Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Section 14 (b) of the West Bengal Act IX of 1972. Secondly, that the order passed by the learned Police Magistrate remanding the accused opposite-party to jail custody is also bad inasmuch as he did not allow the prayer made on behalf of the prosecution to remand the accused opposite party to police custody for necessary interrogation and completing he investigation. Mr. N. C Banerjee, advocate (with Messrs Prasun Chandra ghose, Bidyut Kumar Ghose and prabhot Singh, Advocates) appearing on behalf of the accused opposite-party raised a preliminary objection, besides opposing the Rule on men is and controverting the two dimensions of the learned Deputy Legal Remembrance's contentions. The steps of Mr. Banerjee's reasoning in support of his preliminary objection, are that the Revisional Application filed in this court is not maintain able being a curious amalgam of different sections, some of which are not applicable in a case containing a prayer for cancellation of bail; that the cause title of the application is not also pro per inasmuch as such jurisdiction is not criminal Revisional but Criminal Miscellaneous; and that as the application before this, court contains several averments of facts it should have been affirmed by a competent person. In opposing the Rule on merits, Mr. Banerjee contended, inter alia that the order for bail has been just and fair that the criticism thereof has been more technical than real; that substantial justice has been dispensed by the learned Sessions-Judge-in-charge in allowing interim bail because the accused opposite-party is a respectable person living with his family in his house and there is neither any chance of his absconsionnor of any 'interference by him with the pending investigation; that it should not be overlooked that he did not abuse the indulgence of the interim and con additional bail granted to him, that he has been suffering from various ailments and as such his detention in jail will be very much pre-judicial; and that further conditions, if deemed necessary, may be imposed on his bail. Mr. Banerjee next contended that, in any event, the order dated the 11th December, 1973, passed by the learned Police magistrate, Alipore, cannot be challenged) at this belated stage and in this petition which only arises out of an order dated 13. 12. 73 passed by the learned sessions Judge-in-Charge, Alipore, allowing interim bail in an application for bail filed by the accused opposite-party.;