STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SMT. SABITRI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the fs of the Learned Sessions Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi (for brevity "Sessions Court, Namchi"), dated 02-09-2017 and 04-09-2017, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 99 of 2017, the Petitioner herein seeks setting aside of the impugned Orders and prays that the Respondent-Accused (hereinafter, Accused), be remanded to custody.

(2.) The arguments of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner were two-pronged. Firstly, the propriety of the Order of the Sessions Court, Namchi, dated 02-09-2017, granting interim Bail to the Accused and confirming the Order on 04-09-2017 was questioned being allegedly on extraneous considerations and without jurisdiction. In the second leg of his arguments, it was contended that despite the fact that the Accused had obtained Bail, she had failed to comply with the conditions set forth therein, viz; to make her self-available before the Investigating Officer (for short "I.O."), thereby impeding investigation.

(3.) That, several attempts made by the I.O. to locate the Accused at her residence, as reflected in the Affidavit of the I.O. dated 12-12-2017, has culminated in vain, as the house of the Accused was found to be locked. That, the I.O. having no other alternative took it upon herself to serve a Notice dated 07-12-2017 on the Surety of the Accused, who is present in Court, and vouches for the fact that the Accused is untraceable in the address furnished by her. It was further urged that the Accused is avoiding the Notice and ensuring that it cannot be served on her by remaining out of her house. That, the Notice issued by this Court was also returned with the report that the addressee was out of station. Nevertheless as the Notice was properly addressed to her in the residential address, furnished by her before the Sessions Court, Namchi, the Notice is deemed to have been served in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. His submission on this count was garnered with reliance on the ratiocination of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Hiralal and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 523 and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 510.