Decided on June 28,1995



- (1.)Heard the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Talukdar appearing with Mr. A. K. Pal and A. K. Adhya and the Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. 1 and 2 Mr. Sekhar Bose appearing with Mr. Debasish Roy. None is appearing on behalf of the State. Considered the materials on record.
(2.)By the instant revision u/Ss. 401/482 of the Cr. P.C. the de facto complainant has challenged the order dated 16-3-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah in Crl. Misc. Case No. 97/95 whereby the Ld. Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein and by that order also directed that in the event of arrest of the accused persons or their surrender before the appropriate authority, they shall be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/each on the terms as contained in the said order. In challenging the said order being order No. 11 dated 16-3-95 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 97/95 Mr. Talukdar submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order is illegal, improper and incorrect. Inasmuch as, earlier, an application before this High Court was moved before the Division Bench u/S. 438 of the Cr. P.C. by the accused persons and the matter was heard at length and thereafter on the prayer of the Ld. Advocate for the accused persons, the matter was not proceeded with and it was treated as not pressed. The said fact was suppressed before the Ld. Sessions Judge and as a result of which the Ld. Sessions Judge entertained the application of the accused persons u/S. 438 of the Cr. P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to the said two accused persons who are O.Ps. 1 and 2 herein. Appearing for the accused-persons, Mr. Sekhar Bose candidly and very fairly submitted that he has no point to argue but beseeched the Court to look upon the case with mercy as the accused persons are ladies and house-wives. Before considering the respective submissions on behalf of the parties, a brief resumption of the fact is necessary to appreciate the arguments of the Ld. Advocates for the parties.
(3.)The de facto complainant, who is the petitioner herein, lodged an FIR in Shibpur P.S. which was registered as Shibpur P. S. Case No. 273/94 dated 16-9-94, u/Ss. 409, 420, 120(B) of the I.P.C., on which a G.R. Case was started being G. R. Case No. 1976 of 1994 in the Court of the Ld. S.D.J.M. Howrah, the two accused persons made two applications before this Court for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 of the Cr. P.C. and the said two applications were contested. The Division Bench, after hearing the parties at length, when was about to pass an order which might not be favourable to the accused persons, a submission was made on behalf of the accused persons by their Ld. Advocate that the accused-persons would not press that applications of the said two applicants and they were treated as not pressed. Accordingly, the Division Bench passed such order on such submission that the said two applications be treated as not pressed and rejected the same. But in that order the Division was pleased to record that the matters were heard at length and the arguments advanced by both the parties.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.