1

09.04.2019

Ct No.22
C.R.R. No. 307 of 2019
With
CRAN 935 OF 2019.

Sri Joydeb Debnath
Vs.

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
2

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

hereinabove.

Pursuant to such direction, the revisionist/husband

surrendered and was favoured with interim bail by the Court

below.

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.
3

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.
4

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,
5

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
observed that:

6

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
7

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

merits.

When the petitioner has already surrendered before

the Court bellow, and now enjoying interim bail, no further

direction calls for.

8

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

accordingly.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)