- (1.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation severely criticises the order granting bail on the ground that the Vacation Judge had not acceded to his prayer for adjournment even for a single day although he was unable to assist the Court on the date of hearing due to circumstances beyond his control. He draws attention of this Court to the application made in that regard before the said judge. He strenuously argues that there was no pressing urgency for insisting on the hearing of the bail application on that date itself and no prejudice would have been caused to the accused person if the same had been adjourned to another date. On the other hand, the investigating agency was severely prejudiced as it was unable to effectively assist the Court due to absence of the investigating personnel. It is further brought to our notice that there is no reflection in the impugned order as to what was the change of circumstances since the rejection of the bail by this Court on 6th August, 2015 which prompted the Vacation Judge to grant bail. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the accused person being an influential minister in the State Government there is every likelihood of abusing his powers to influence and/or intimidate witnesses. On the other hand, Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-opposite party submits that the supplementary charge sheet was filed after the rejection of bail by this Hon'ble Court on 6th August, 2015. He further submits that adequate opportunity was given to the investigating agency inasmuch as notice was served upon them on 14th October, 2015 specifically indicating the date of hearing. He also submits that the order granting bail is a well-reasoned one and does not require interference by this Court.
(2.) Having considered the submissions of the parties, we find that the learned Vacation Judge had notwithstanding the prayer for adjournment on the part of the Central Bureau of Investigation proceeded with the hearing of the bail application and had granted bail on merits. We also do not find any observation as to change of circumstances since the rejection of the bail by this Hon'ble Court on 6th August, 2015 in the said order although submission in that regard has been made across the Bar.
(3.) Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be heard on merits. We also feel as the matter relates to a prayer for cancellation of bail which had been earlier turned down by the Regular Bench, the same ought to be placed before the self-same Bench for hearing on merits.;