KRISHNA BERA Vs. BUDDHADEB MUDLI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail of the Opposite Party Sri Buddhadeb Mudli under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with G.R. No. 559 of 2013 arising out of Daspur Police Station Case No. 192 of 2013 dated 18.08.2013 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The backdrop of the present case in brief is as follows: - -

(2.) ON August 18, 2013 the petitioner lodged written complaint before the Officer -in -Charge of Daspur Police Station making an allegation of attempt to commit rape by the opposite party. The written complaint was treated as Daspur Police Station Case No. 192 of 2013 dated 18.08.2013 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. On February 12, 2014 the opposite party was arrested and produced before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal who granted him bail. On July 24, 2014 the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal for cancellation of bail of the opposite party and the said application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner was rejected by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail of the opposite party before this court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) MR . Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that very serious allegation of outraging of modesty of the petitioner was raised by the petitioner in the First Information Report. The opposite party is a teacher and he outraged the modesty of the petitioner when the opposite party went to the house of the petitioner as a private tutor of the child of the petitioner. By referring to the impugned order dated February 12, 2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Mr. Sanyal submits that learned Magistrate misdirected himself by not considering the allegation made in the First Information Report in proper perspective. Mr. Sanyal has pointed out that while the contents of First Information Report indicate specific serious allegation against the opposite party, learned Magistrate has observed in the order that the allegations made in the First Information Report are not very specific in nature. According to Mr. Sanyal, the order of granting bail by learned Magistrate on February 12, 2014 is perverse and as such the bail granted in favour of the opposite party is liable to be cancelled. It is relevant to point out that Mr. Sanyal has not pointed out any post -bail conduct of the opposite party for the purpose of cancellation of the bail.