SANJAY MEHTA Vs. JAYANTA GUPTA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Re: Application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.10.08.

(2.) At the Bar we have been addressed on behalf of the petitioner, the opposite parties and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. An affidavit has been used on behalf of the opposite parties.

(3.) It is the principal contention of the petitioner that after their release on bail pursuant to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Howrah, on 30.9.2008, they have been constantly threatening the petitioner and his family members and the eye-witnesses. As such, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was of the view that it would not be conducive in the interest of the pending trial for the opposite parties to remain on bail as they will tamper with the evidence. Relying on various G.D. entries and other materials the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has diarized each and every action when either the petitioner himself or his family members or any witnesses were threatened. According to the leaded Counsel for the petitioner, in the interest of justice for ensuring a proper trial and safety of the petitioner, it is necessary that the order of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge on 30.9.2008 should be cancelled.