CHAMPALAL BHUDARMAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the Accused-applicant, Champalal B. Jain alias champalal Bhudarmal Jain, directed against an order dated the 26th february, 1974 passed by Shri R. K. Sharma, Chief Presidency Magistrate, calcutta in Sec. C. Case No. 711 dated 3. 11. 72 under Sections 406/411/420/ 120b/109 Indian Penal Code and praying that the Accused-applicant may be released forthwith from the police custody and the amount of his bail may. also be reduced. The application is with notice to the State and is opposed.

(2.) THE point at issue is an intriguing one and arises in the backdrop of the following facts. The Accused-applicant is stated to have been appointed as the officer on Special Duty under m/s. French Motor Car Co. Ltd. There was a search at the office premises of the aforesaid company by some officers attached to the office of the Commercial tax officer, Bureau of Investigation on the 23rd October, 1973 and various documents and books of Accounts were seized. The Acc used-applicant was arrested, while working in his office, on the 25th February, 1974 at about 12. 30 p. m. , by some Officers attached to the aforesaid Bureau of investigation in connection with Section g. Case No. 711 dated 3. 11. 72 under sections 406/411/420/120b/169 Indian penal Code. Thirtynine other accused persons were also arrested at different times and the investigation is pending. On the 26th February, 1974, the accused-applicant was produced before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, calcutta; on an application for bail being filed before him, the learned chief Presidency Magistrate, by his order of the same date, directed that the Accused-applicant may be released on a bail of Rs. 20,000/- with the sureties of like amount, or. condition that while on bail the accused-applicant shall not go out of Calcutta without permission and would see the Investigating officer as and when called upon to do so; and that the order of bail will take effect from the 1st March, 1974. This order has been impugned and forms the subject-matter of the present application.

(3.) MR. Sankardas Banerjee, Sr. Advocate (with Messrs Dilip Kumar dutta, Rajesh Prasad Khaitan and subhas Kumar Deb, Advocates)appearing in support of the application made a two-fold submission. The first contention is one of law and of some importance viz. as to whether a suspended or prospective order for bait, taking effect from a future date, is warranted by law. The point raided is indeed an intriguing one but in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dead-line expiring today, a consideration thereof may be more academic than real. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties however pressed for a decision by the High Court, as they submitted that there is no decision specifically on the point. In view of the same and in view of the importance of the point involved, we will proceed to consider the same.