- (1.) Fallacious inception cannot sanctify the fructification. If we simply keep this in mind, there will be no difficulty for us in scuttling the liberty obtained by the opposite party No. 2 achieved under circumstances, which in judicial parlance can neither be said to be a legal order nor it be termed as a just order.
(2.) Seeking to reverse the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in C.G.R. Case No. 2084 of 2008 whereby the opposite party No.2 was admitted on ad interim bail, which was later confirmed on 26.08.2008 after the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge on 05.07.2008 in Criminal Misc. Case No.3657 of 2008 allowed the prayer of the opposite party No.2 made under section 438 Cr. PC this application has been taken out by the petitioner on sundry grounds.
(3.) Shri Joymalya Bagchi with Shri D.C. Kabir appearing in support of this application has invited our attention to the order No.2 dated 05.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge in Criminal Misc. Case No.3657 of 2068 and submitted that based on the papers with regard to the treatment of the opposite party No.2 at the concerned Health Care Centre and the fact that there is no recovery - at the first instance the Court should not have considered the prayer made under section 438 Cr. PC.;