Sl. No. 04
CRM 1807 of 2020
In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure filed on 14.02.2020 in connection with
Patrasayer Police Station Case No.32/2009 dated 23.06.2009
under Sections 498A/306/34 of the IPC.
In re: Nirupada @ Niranjan Bagdi Anr.
Ms. Sudipa Biswas
… … for the petitioners
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.
Ms. Amita Gour
… … for the State
The petitioners sought to be released on bail on any condition
as they are in custody for about 35 days.
The petitioners were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 3 years under Section 498A of the IPC and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for further period
of 3 months, although they were acquitted of the charge under
Section 306 of the IPC by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bishnupur
by the judgment dated 19.04.2013, passed in S.C. No.17(9)/10.
They were allowed to prefer appeal and were admitted on bail. Order-
sheet shows almost routine order passed by the learned Appeal
Court. The case was transferred on 28.03.2016 to the Court of
Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bankura. The direction was
given to the petitioners/appellants to appear before the transferee
Court. The transferee Additional Sessions Judge fixed the date for
order in view of the resolution of local Bar for 3/4 occasions. Then
again the routine orders were passed by the learned Judge without
fixing the date for effective hearing of the appeal.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners/appellants that the
advocate on record Kanai Singh who was conducting the case had
died and under this impression the petitioners/appellants could not
take step. The case was also further adjourned due to resolution of
local Bar. The date was fixed for fresh step on 13.11.2019. On that
date none had taken any step. So, the learned Judge was of the view
that the appellants had misused the bail privilege and directed the
Trial Court to ensure the production of the appellants. By order
dated 14.01.2020 the appellants were produced and bail prayer was
made on their behalf. Though there was no objection on the part of
the learned Public Prosecutor in charge, the bail was rejected finding
no justified reason.
I find that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in
rejecting the bail application holding the appellants/petitioners
having misused the bail privilege as the date fixed was for fresh step
and without step being taken, he directed the Trial Court to ensure
production of the appellants instead of directing the sureties to
produce the appellants and without starting any Misc. Case under
Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the sureties who had furnished bonds
undertaking to produce the accused on the dates of hearing before
any coercive measure is taken for securing production of the
Therefore, upon hearing the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners and the State, the appellants/petitioners be allowed to
remain on the same bail with the direction upon the Additional
District Judge to dispose of the criminal appeal as expeditiously as
possible preferably within 6 months from the date of communication
of the order.
Thus, the application for bail being CRM 1807 of 2020 is,
accordingly, disposed of.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)