ct no. 14
C.R.R. 1223 of 2019
Md. Firoj Alam @ Laltu
The State of West Bengal Anr.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee,
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty,
Mr. S.S. Saha
…for the petitioner.
Mr. Avik Ghatak,
Mr. Mainak Swarnokar
…for the opposite party no. 2
Mrs. Anosuya Sinha
…for the State
In respect of an allegation and an FIR under Sections
498A/325/307/376D/313/406 and under the provisions of the
SectionDowry Prohibition Act, an investigation was commenced.
The revisionist applied for bail before the learned
Magistrate and was granted the same on August 31, 2018.
Subsequently, the learned Sessions Judge-in-charge, who
was acting in place of the regular Sessions Judge also, granted
anticipatory bail to the brother of the revisionist.
Thereafter, the Investigating Officer on October 3, 2018
filed an application for cancellation of bail before the regular
The learned counsel for the revisionist disputes the exact
date on which such application was made and submits that it was
made sometime in December. The records will suitably indicate
the exact date. The learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order
dated April 11, 2019 cancelled the bail. The grounds for the same
were that the facts standing in the Case Diary did not warrant the
grant of bail.
The revisionist would argue that passage of time, for about
one and a half month of grant of bail, an application for
cancellation of bail, by the Officer-in-Charge, throws open serious
questions as regards the bona fides of such application.
This Court had summoned the case diary and the same
reveals horrific and shocking treatment of victim. This Court,
however, does not express any opinion thereon, as the records will
speak for themselves.
Applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad Vs. State of
Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No. 1162-1163 of 2019, delivered
on 30th July, 2019, one would normally assume that the Sessions
Judge was acting in Revision while cancelling / setting aside the
bail. The Sessions Judge was, however, dealing with an
application for cancellation of bail.
Despite the above, in the peculiarly shocking facts and
circumstances of the case and despite a lapse of about 8 months
from the grant of bail by the learned Magistrate in the first place,
this Court is of the view that bail ought not to have been granted
to the Revisionist. The impugned order is therefore not interfered
The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating
Officer within a period of 48 hours, failing which the Investigating
Officer shall be entitled to take steps in accordance with law. The
petitioner obviously has remedies available to him under the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application is
No order as to costs.
The original case diary is returned back to the
The personal presence of the Investigating Officer is
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,
be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)