AJIMAN BIBI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of a letter of complaint sent by one Ajiman Bibi to the Honhle Chief Justice in connection with Bishnupur P.S. Case No. 149 (6)/98 dated 7-6-1998 started under. Sections 376/302/34, I.P.C. The Honble Chief Justice, on the basis of the said complaint obtained the case diary and the concerned lower Court records and then directed the matter to be placed before the Division Bench presided over by G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. This is how the matter has come up before this Bench.

(2.) Ajiman Bibis married daughter Sabiran Bibi aged about 23 years used to live with Ajiman Bibi. As usual on 6-6-1998 Sabiran went to her work in the morning but did not return home. Next morning the dead body of Sabiran was found lying in the field with marks of violence prima facie suggesting that she was possibly raped and then murdered. On that very date, that is, on 7-6- 1998 Ajiman Bibi lodged FIR at Bishnupur P,S, against the six accused persons, namely, (1) Jahangir Mondal, (2) Mustakin Mondal. (3) Humaun Mollah, (4) Qutubuddin Mollah, (5) Mustakin Mollah and (6) Naser Sekh suspecting that those accused persons had raped and murdered her daughter and also describing some prior history including the history of recent effort made by the said accused persons to outrage the modesty of her daughter and also of their threats to kill her. Soon thereafter, the FIR named accused Naser was arrested on 12-6-1998 but the other five accused persons remained at large and they ultimately obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge, Alipore on 1-7-1999. Thereafter, Ajiman Bibi made the complaint to the HonTble Chief Justice that the accused persons managed to obtain bail in collusion with the Public Prosecutor. Alipore and thereafter, they are threatening her and she did not get any redress from the 1.0. and the O.C. of the P.S., inspite of making complaint to them.

(3.) On perusal of the case diary and the relevant case records we found that the FIR named accused persons who obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge on 1-7-1999 earlier applied to the same Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail but on that occasion their prayer was rejected on 24-8- 1998 with the observation that the case diary revealed that they were responsible for the offence. Thereafter, they moved the High Court but a Division Bench of this Court comprising B. Panigrahi and D.P. Sen Gupta, JJ. also rejected their prayer for anticipatory bail on merit after perusal of case diary on 5-4-1999. Even thereafter they went back to the Sessions Judge, Alipore and again prayed for anticipatory bail and this time, they were successful in obtaining anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge on 1-7-1999 who while passing the order recorded that the learned Public Prosecutor of his Court did not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail stating inter alia that there were in fact no implicating materials against the petitioners, and the learned Lawyer for the petitioners submitted that they were falsely implicated in the case. The order also inter alia recorded that in the facts and circumstances discussed and considering the case diary the Sessions Judge found it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail and accordingly allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail. When these facts came to the notice of this Bench, it was felt by the Bench that the Sessions Judge. Alipore prima facie acted without jurisdiction and his act in granting anticipatory bail to the self same accused persons whose prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court amounted to an act of gross impropriety and judicial indiscipline. This Bench was also surprised to note that the Public Prosecutor. Alipore did not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail on 1-7-1999 and rather submitted that there were no implicating materials against the accused persons. This Bench in the circumstances asked for explanation, if any in the matter from the Sessions Judge as well as the Public Prosecutor of his Court. The concerned accused persons were also asked to show cause as to why their jail should not be cancelled the case diary was found written only upto the end of May, 1999. The 1.0. of the case and the O.C. of the P.S. were asked to appear in Court and they were also asked to submit explanation. All of them submitted their ex p Ia nations.