SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner seeking for modification of the order dated 09.01.2015 and also for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Learned Judge, Special Court, Murshidabad in connection with case NO.C -SPL 10 of 2014 whereby and whereunder he granted statutory bail to the petitioner of Rs.5,000/ - with one local surity of the like amount to be verified by the ADM (LR) or SL & LRO, Murshidabad subject to satisfaction of that Court and rejected the prayer for modification of the said bail order.
(2.) The factual matrix leading to the present application in brief is that the petitioner was arrested and taken into custody on 10.10.2014. Since final report was not filed within the statutory period as prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner was granted bail by the Learned Judge, Special Court on 9th January, 2015 on condition that the petitioner would furnish a bond of Rs.5,000/ - with one local surety to be verified by the ADM (LR) or SL & LRO, Murshidabad subject to the satisfaction of that Court id to remain in custody till 20.01.2015. In terms of such order the petitioner furnished bail bond on 14.01.2015 but the Learned Judge, Special Court did not accept the same holding that it was not in compliance with the bail order and on that very date i.e. 14.01.2015 charge sheet under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was submitted and cognizance was also taken. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition on 20.01.2015 praying for modification of the order of granting bail passed on 09.01.2015 but such prayer was turned down on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by such order the instant Revisional Application has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Arindam Sengupta, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the Learned Trial Judge, ought to have assigned reasons for rejecting the application for modification of the stringent condition of bail because it deprived the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the Learned Judge extended a premium to the Investigating Agency to ensure the submission of charge -sheet by putting such stringent condition knowing fully well that the date 09.01.2015 was Friday and the next three days i.e.10th January, 11th January and 12th January were holidays and all the Government offices were closed for which there was no scope for the petitioner to get the local surety to be verified by the Authority prescribed in that order dated 09.01.2015. He contended yet further that the petitioner/accused had an indefeasible right to be released on bail on account of default by the Investigating Agency to submit the charge -sheet within the statutory period. But such statutory right of the petitioner/accused has been frustrated which tantamounts to refusal of bail and is a gross violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, the impugned orders are bad in law and are liable to be set aside. He relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 149 (Raghubir Singh and Others V. State of Bihar and Simranjit Singh Mann. V. State of Bihar) and (2011) 2 C.Cr.L.R (Cal) 200 (Monotosh Ghosh V. The State of West Bengal) in support of his contention.;