- (1.) THE State of West Bengal, as petitioner, by filing an application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has sought to assail the order dated 16th July, 2009 passed by the learned Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, in G. R. Case No. 1559/09.
(2.) BY the said order dated 16th July, 2009, the learned Court, while rejecting the prayer for bail for one of the accused persons, namely, Mahesh malani, granted bail to the present opposite party, namely, Sanjay Chandak. Mr. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor, high Court, Calcutta, while assailing the said order, submitted that the order would reflect a strange application of mind. According to Mr. Goswami, the materials in the Case Diary would reveal that both the accused persons, as named earlier, stand on identical footing. Mr. Goswami then submitted that the said order does not reflect as to why and how one of the accused persons was favoured with an order of bail, whereas the other person has been denied the same.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the O. P. /accused person, however, has sought to justify the said order, which according to him, is quite elaborate and it satisfactorily explains the situation. It is certainly not expected from any court to adopt an attitude, which can even remotely suggest that whereas 'all are equals, some are more equal than others'. We find that the order dated 16th of July, 2009 was passed after hearing learned Counsel for both parties and on perusal of the materials in the Case Diary. In the said order, learned C. M. M. found the accused, Mahesh Malani, as the kingpin who defrauded the company for which he worked for and cheated the said company, resulting in loss of about rs. 65,00,000/ -. Learned Court sought to distinguish the two accused persons with the observation regarding the present O. P. that 'the investigation does not reveal what hand he had in the disappearance of 9583 tapes or any part thereof, though he may have had a hand in manufacturing and fabricating false bills and challans. ' It was also submitted on behalf of the O. P. /accused person that such accused after bring out on bail complied with all the directions given by the learned Court and in absence of any abuse of liberty, there can be no justification for cancellation of bail.;