C.R.R. No. 307 of 2019
CRAN 935 OF 2019.
Sri Joydeb Debnath
State of West Bengal Anr.
Mr. Amarta Ghosh, Adv.
Mrs. Rituparna Ghosh
… For the Petitioner.
Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda. Adv.
Mr. Subham Bhakat.
… For the State.
Mr. Sataroop Purskayastha, Adv.
Mr. Hamidur Rahaman, Adv.
… for the O.P
This is pursuant to the direction given on 08.04.19
fixing the matter for hearing in connection with a CRAN
application 935 of 2019 seeking clarification of the order
dated 8.02.19 passed in CRR No. 307 of 2019.
The opposite party wanted an opportunity of hearing,
and upon consideration of which, this Court directed
petitioner to serve copy of application including the
revisional application upon the opposite parities.
Admittedly by order dated 8.02.2019 in connection
with CRR No.307 of 2019, the impugned order of the learned
Sessions Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) dated
18.01.2019 making cancellation the order of bail was stayed
for period of four (4) weeks subject to the condition that
revisionist shall surrender before the learned ACJM,
Baruipur, in connection with the Sonarpur Police Station
Case No. 492 dated 31.03.2018 under Sections 498A/427 of the
Indian Penal Code within the period of time as stipulated
Pursuant to such direction, the revisionist/husband
surrendered and was favoured with interim bail by the Court
Learned Sessions Judge Alipore, 24 Parganas (South)
cancelled the bail on 18th January, 2019. Admittedly in this
case the petitioner/revisionist was granted anticipatory bail.
There was an observation of the learned Sessions Judge,
while granting anticipatory bail that “if the
petitioner/accused is enlarged on regular bail, the regular bail
may be cancelled if the petitioner/accused fails to meet the
reasonable demand made by the informent to come to a
settlement for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent”.
The contention raised by the learned advocate for opposite
party is that petitioner already failed to comply with the
condition by meeting the reasonable demand made by the de
facto complainant/wife to come to a settlement for
dissolution of marriage on mutual consent.
Learned Sessions Judge, while making cancellation of
bail, took note of a fact that nothing was produced to show
that husband/petitioner made any endeavour to settle the
matrimonial discord and filed the matrimonial suit for
dissolution of marriage on mutual consent in compliance
with the Court’s order and conditions imposed thereby. The
one of the of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge was that settlement will be finalised in order to end the
matrimonial discord between the parties by meeting the
reasonable demand of the wife, conducive for a settlement,
upon dissolution of marriage on mutual consent. The
learned Judge further considered existence of two general
diaries, which found their birth at the instance of the de facto
complainant/wife after the husband/petitioner was enlarged
on regular bail. Allegations were there that the husband
pressurized the wife to withdraw the criminal case brought
against him, and the wife was even put to suffer insult,
oppression, torture and physical ill‐treatment etc.
Learned advocate for the revisionist submits that bail
once granted, cannot be cancelled mechanically unless
overwhelming circumstances were made to exist against the
husband/petitioner, supportive of cancellation of bail.
Learned advocate Mr. Panda representing the State
submits that necessary order may be recorded in terms of the
settled proposition of law, hinting thereby that it is a
Magistrate Triable case.
It appears that learned Sessions Judge upon
consideration of the GD entries together with violation of the
condition imposed by him, while granting anticipatory bail,
proceeded to make cancellation of the bail of the petitioner.
The parameters to be observed for granting bail are
indeed different, while making consideration for cancellation
of bail. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge
in connection with prayer for anticipatory bail finds no
sanction in terms of the provisions contained in Section 438
Cr.P.C. The condition imposed there is not something akin
to the conditions, that may be ordinarily imposed, while
granting anticipatory bail to a petitioner.
In the case in hand, police after investigation
submitted chargesheet under Sections 498A/427 IPC deleting
offence under Section 307 IPC. Learned Court below by its
order dated 21.7.18 took cognizance of the offence after the
chargesheet was submitted. The fact of having submitted
chargesheet making out a prima facie case under Sections
498A/427 IPC went unnoticed by the learned Sessions Judge,
when the order was made making cancellation of bail. The
outcome of the investigation is suggestive of a Magisterial
trial. With the submission of the chargesheet, a new
dimension with a new horizon came up before the Court
which was necessarily to be looked into while making
cancellation of bail.
It would be profitable here to refer a decision of Apex
Court reported in AIR (2018) 16 SCC 511 rendered in the case
of X (appellant) Vs. State of Telangana and Ors. wherein and
whereunder it was held that there must be intervention of
supervening circumstances, which would render the Court to
believe that it will no longer conducive for a fair trial to allow
the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession
of bail during the trial. The proposition of law decided in
Para 12 of such decision being germane to the present context
of the case calls for proper application with certainty and
effectiveness for addressing the issue surfaced at the
moment, which may be mentioned as hereinunder:
“12. In a consistent line of precedent this Court has
emphasised the distinction between the rejection of
bail in a non‐bailable case at the initial stage and the
cancellation of bail after it has been granted. In
adverting to the distinction, a Bench of two learned
Judges of this Court in Dolatram versus State of
Haryana Manu/SC/0547/1995: (1995) 1 SCC 349
Rejection of a bail in a non‐bailable case at the initial
stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to
be considered and dealt with on different basis.
Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the
bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds
for cancellation of the bail, already grated, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion of attempt to
evade the due course of justice or abuse of the
concession granted to the Accused in any manner. The
satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material
placed on the record of the possibility of the Accused
absconding is yet another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted
should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to
a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail during the Trial.
These principles have been reiterated by another two
Judge Bench decision in Central Bureau of
Investigation, Hyderbad v. Subramani
Gopalakrishnan Manu/SC/0518/2011 : (2011) 5 SCC
296 and more recently in Dataram Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0085/2018 SCALE 285:
It is also relevant to note that there is difference
between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal
against the order granting bail. Very congent and
overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an
order directing the cancellation of bail already grated.
Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of
bail are, interface or attempt to interfere with the due
course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of
the concessions granted to the Accused in any manner.
These are all only few illustrative materials. The
satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials
placed on record of the possibility of the Accused
absconding is another reason justifying the
cancellation of bail. In other words, bail once granted
should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening
circumstance have rendered it no longer conducive to
a fair trial to allow the Accused to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”
The post bail conduct of accused alone is not always
decisive for making cancellation of bail. The prime
consideration, while making cancellation of bail, is that bail
once granted should not be cancelled without considering
whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to fair trial to allow accused to retain his
freedom by enjoying concession of bail during trial. This
aspect remained unconsidered by the learned Sessions Judge,
while making cancellation of bail.
Upon consideration of entire aspects, the Court by its
order dated 8th February, 2019 granted stay with direction
upon the petitioner to surrender within a stipulated period of
time, which was inadvertently shown to have been disposed
of in connection with CRR No. 307 of 2019.
After considering the rival submissions raised by the
parties, it appears that revisional application is without any
When the petitioner has already surrendered before
the Court bellow, and now enjoying interim bail, no further
direction calls for.
The impugned order dated 18.1.19 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge in connection with Criminal Misc.
No.4348 of 2018 making cancellation of bail of the petitioner
is accordingly set aside.
With this observation the clarifications, as sought for,
stand explained giving due regard to the contention raised
by the learned advocate for the opposite party.
Department is directed to take necessary steps
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)