Anjali Ray vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The matter appears under the heading “Assigned Matters†before this Court, being one of three matters assigned by the Note of the Hon’ble

the Chief Justice dated 2nd September, 2014. Mr. Mitra, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present application is one for

cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.). Mr. Mitra essentially makes two points connected to

the prayer for cancellation of bail. First, by order dated 31st October, 2013, the Case Diary was produced before the Learned A.C.J.M., Serampore

and, on perusal of the Case Diary, the prayer for bail stood rejected.

Second, although by order dated 1st November, 2013, the bail was granted to the petitioner along with three other co-accused by recording, inter alia,

that the charge-sheet has been submitted, Mr. Mitra expresses reservation connected to the procedure/stand taken by the Learned A.C.J.M.,

Serampore. Mr. Mitra finds it odd that on the basis of pari materia materials bail which was refused to the petitioner on the previous date, i.e. 31st of

October, 2013, was granted on the very next/succeeding date, i.e. 1st of November, 2013. In connection to the above point, Mr. Mitra draws the

attention of this Court to paragraph 17 of the present application which reads as follows:

“17. That such act of the subsequent magistrate presiding over the same chair is an act of judicial indiscipline and contrary to the principles of the

settled judicial norms and highly conflicting in nature between the two presiding officers holding the same chair.â€​

The additional point argued by Mr. Mitra relates to the application filed by the petitioner before the Officer-inCharge, Serampore Police Station. Such

application purports to show that the Opposite Party (OP)/Accused is resorting to measures to intimidate the petitioner.

The pleadings in the said application also purport to demonstrate that the investigation carried out by the police is defective by design. Ms. Hossain,

Learned State Prosecutor, files a Report of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) dated 7th of May, 2018 which dwells on the post bail conduct of the

O.P./Accused. The Report, inter alia, states as follows:

“Report of Post Bail Conduct: On 14.06.2016 & 26.04.16 the petitioner submitted two petitions at Serampore PS subsequently, where she alleged

that she was threatened by her husband namely Srikant Ray and others with dire consequence. They threatened her at Ld. Serampore Court

compound and her house. The matter was enquired by SI Tapas Chatterjee of Serampore PS. The allegations made by the petitioner could not be

substantiated in course of enquiry. The petition of the petitioner is enclosed here withâ€​.

Mr. Banerjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the OP/Accused, argues that bail was granted on the 1st of November, 2013. The purported letter

addressed by the petitioner to the Officer-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station as annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit of the petitioner is undated.

At best the letter can be related to June, 2016, the purported stamp of the police authority acknowledging receipt, which is nearly thirty (30) months of

the bail being granted to the OP/Accused on the 1st of November, 2013.

Mr. Banerjee also draws the attention of this Court to the cause title of the present application and submits that the cause title is self-explanatory on

the fact that the petitioner and the OP/Accused are residing at far-flung places and therefore, there is no factual basis to the window dressing by the

petitioner of the alleged adverse conduct of the OP/Accused. Mr. Banerjee relies upon the authorities of (2014) 3 S.C.C.(Criminal) 449( (Arnesh

Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr.) and 1992 CRI.L.J.4000 (Tilak Raj Kohli vs. Devender Kumar & Anr.) to demonstrate that the power of arrest is

called for only in the circumstances envisaged by law and, no material has been palpably demonstrated to establish that the

O.P./Accused has acted in a manner deserving of cancellation of his bail. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is

of the view that the present application of the petitioner is vexatious. Accordingly, CRM 1072 of 2014 stands dismissed. The dismissal of this

application shall not, however, prevent the petitioner from raising any grievance in accordance with law before the appropriate authority/forum. Urgent

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.