Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Saha & Anr vs Unknown on 2 July, 2025
02.07.2025
SL No.25
Sg/sm
(Allowed)
C.R.M. (M) 680 of 2025
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 filed
on 10.06.2025 in connection with Raiganj P.S. Case No. 40 of
2018 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 498A/323/325/307/34
of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In the matter of: Pradip Saha & Anr.
....Petitioners
Mr. Sabayasachi Chatterjee,
Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi
...for the petitioners
Mr. Arijit Ganguly,
Mr. Kunal Ganguly
...for the State
1.
Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order dated 19th May, 2025 and 22nd May, 2025 whereby the
bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II In-
Charge, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur.
2. In the backdrop the facts in brief are that FIR No.40/18
dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 498A/323/325/307/34 of the
IPC was registered against the petitioners and other accused
persons. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the
court on 30th November, 2018.
3. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner no.2 was
admitted to anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 16th
November, 2018 in C.R.M. 8714 of 2018. The application for
cancellation bearing C.R.M. 1155 of 2019 was also disposed of
2
by this court vide order dated 22nd November, 2019 and certain
additional conditions were imposed.
4. The plea of the prosecution is that after filing of the
charge-sheet, the petitioners had been regularly absenting
themselves and this led to the issuance of warrant of arrest
against the accused persons vide order dated 13th May, 2025.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that apparently the
petitioners have misused the bail granted to them and did not
allow the proceedings to happen before the learned trial court.
6. Learned counsel for the accused persons has stated that
petitioner no.1 was admitted to regular bail and the petitioner
no.2 was admitted to anticipatory bail by the Division Bench of
this Court after taking into account entire facts and
circumstances. Learned counsel submits that on some of the
dates the accused persons did not appear which led to the
issuance of warrant of arrest and the learned trial court ignoring
the fact that the petitioners remained on regular bail for a long
period of time took them into custody and rejected the bail
application.
7. The court has considered the submissions. It is not
disputed that petitioner no.1 was admitted to regular bail and
the petitioner no.2 was admitted to anticipatory bail by the
Division Bench of this Court. The application for cancellation of
bail was also rejected. Some of the order-sheets placed on
record, indicates that the petitioners did not appear before the
learned trial court which led to the issuance of warrant of arrest.
3
However, the learned trial court rejected the bail application of
the petitioners taking into account the gravity of the alleged
offence. There is no mention about specific violation of
cancellation of bail order or any specific circumstances on the
basis of which petitioners could not have been allowed to be
remained on bail. The exercise of jurisdiction of bail is an
important and sensitive jurisdiction which has to be exercised,
taking into account the liberty of an individual. The liberty of an
individual can be curtailed only in exceptional circumstances.
The fact that the petitioners defaulted in appearing before the
learned trial court could have been handled by imposing
stringent condition.
8. The court considers that the rejection of the bail
application vide order dated 19th May, 2025 and 22nd May, 2025
cannot be sustained as the same is bereft of any reason. The
court should have taken into account that the petitioners were
granted on bail on merits by the learned trial court and this
court respectively.
9. Thus, taking into account, the facts and circumstances,
the petitioner are admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond
of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of
whom should be local, subject to the satisfaction of learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II In-Charge,
Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, and subject to the condition that the
petitioner shall appear regularly before the learned trial court. In
case there is a difficulty in the personal appearance, the
4
petitioners shall take prior exemption from the learned trial
court.
10. The application for bail is, thus, allowed.
11. Needless to say, the condition as imposed by the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2019 in
C.R.M. 1155 of 2019 shall remain same. The other conditions
imposed by the learned trial court at the time of admitting
petitioner no.1 on bail shall also remain the same.
12. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this
order.
(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)