STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. KRISHNENDU MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned lawyer for the State has assailed the order dated 19th May, 2018 passed by the Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Burdwan in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1627 of 2018 granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, inter alia, on the condition that he shall surrender before the concerned Court within 30 days. It is submitted that similar prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 12-02-2018 in CRM No. 1259 of 2018. Notwithstanding such fact, the trial judge proceeded to grant pre-arrest bail, inter alia, on the premise that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. It is argued that the trial judge ignored the prayer for further investigation and custodial interrogation of the absconding accused persons including the petitioner while passing such order. The impugned order, therefore, is not only affront to judicial discipline and comity of courts but also suffers from gross non-application of mind.

(2.) Rebutting such submissions, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the opposite party/accused submit that the order of pre-arrest bail is a temporary one and is no longer in force as his client did not appear before the concerned court within 30 days, as directed. They further submit that their client did not surrender before the court below as he apprehended that he would be subjected to custodial torture and false implication in other case as he has inimical relation with the local Police Administration. Our attention is drawn to previous litigation instituted by the petitioner against the Police Administration in support of such plea of animosity. It is further submitted that as charge sheet had been filed, the trial judge took into consideration subsequent developments and granted pre-arrest bail. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to pray for regular bail provided he is not subjected to custodial torture or harassment by the Police Administration.

(3.) In the face of submission relating to animosity from police towards the petitioner, we called upon the learned counsel for the State to inform us whether the petitioner is wanted in any other case apart from those which are listed in paragraph 6 of the cancellation application.