HIMANDRI DEY @ NEMAI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted to learned Counsel for the petitioners to amend the cause title of the application for criminal revision for the purpose of deleting the entries made in the cause title to the effect "An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India" in course of this day. The petitioners have preferred this criminal revision challenging the order No. 13 dated 6.2.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Criminal Misc. Case 1710 of 2013 by which the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners on 5.8.2013, and the said order of bail was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even when the petitioners did not violate any condition of bail and did not misuse the liberty granted to them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cooch Behar.

(2.) According to Mr. Nisith Nandan Adhikary, the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail are not germane to the provision of section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mr. Adhikary has also pointed out that the learned Magistrate had taken into consideration that the names of the petitioners were not reflected in the Certification of Incorporation of the Company as the Directors during the period of the transaction involved in the criminal case. Mr. Adhikary thus submits that the order of cancellation of bail passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot sustain in law.

(3.) Mr. Ghose, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P/State submits that the order of cancellation of bail passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be construed as an order passed by the Revisional Court under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of "Maya Majumder v. State of West Bengal" (CRM No. 15140/12 decided on 12.8.13), Mr. Ghose contends that the order of bail may be cancelled if irrelevant facts were taken into consideration and relevant facts were ignored at the time of granting bail to the accused person. Mr. Ghosh has also pointed out that there is contradiction in the orders dated 3.8.13 and 5.8.13 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in deciding the application for bail of the petitioners. Mr. Ghose also submits that there was need of custodial interrogation of the petitioners in order to discover the facts involved in the case, and as such, the matter should be left to the discretion of the learned Magistrate to decide afresh whether bail should be granted to the petitioners by upholding the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.