ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. - (1.) We are to deal with substantial questions of law on three counts in this reference, arising out of these two bail applications. Before we reproduce the substantial questions of law which we are to answer, we shall refer to the factual context in which this reference was made to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The facts have been narrated in an office note dated 22nd June 2016. These two applications were heard by a Division Bench of this Court on 20th May 2016. The Division Bench was pleased to reject these applications on that date. The final order was signed by the Hon'ble Presiding Judge on that date itself and the order was sent to the Hon'ble Companion Judge. But the order was not signed by the Hon'ble Companion Judge on the same day. That was the last date after which the summer recess of this Court commenced. On 6th June 2016, this Court reopened after the vacation, and the order was placed before the Hon'ble Companion Judge. His Lordship signed the order on that date, i.e. 6th June 2016. After signing, however, the Hon'ble Companion Judge penned through his signature. Thereafter, on 7th June 2016, a separate order allowing both the bail applications was passed. The order of 20th May 2016, with the signature of the Hon'ble Presiding Judge, and the penned through signature of the Hon'ble Companion Judge, forms part of the records of these two applications. The order of the Hon'ble Companion Judge which shows the date 7th June 2016 on the margin of the order sheet indicating the date on which the order was being passed also forms part of records of these proceedings. On 7th June 2016, these applications did not appear in the list of the Division Bench.
(2.) The substantial questions of law which have been referred to us for consideration in this perspective, and which we would be answering in this judgment are these: - I. Whether the Bench had become functus officio after rejecting the bail on 20th May 2016 and at least after signing of the order by both the Judges on 6.6.2016. II. Whether it was within the jurisdiction of one of the Judges of the Bench to pen through his signature on the Original of the Order dated 20.05.2016 after affixing signature thereto on 6.6.2016. III. There has to be a finding also whether the Order dated 7.6.2016 is a valid dissenting order necessitating reference to a Third Judge in terms of Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) In this reference, Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners and State was represented by Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor. Both of them submitted that they had appeared for the respective parties on 20th May 2016, and on that date the Hon'ble Companion Judge did not express any dissent after the Hon'ble Presiding Judge had dictated the Order of rejection. In the disposal statement of 20th May 2016, maintained by the Court registry also the two applications were recorded as having been rejected. Both of them were also ad idem on the point that these two petitions shall be treated as rejected in law. We shall examine the questions of law referred to us and express our opinion taking into account the submissions of the opposing parties made before us in course of hearing of this reference.;