Satikanta Guha vs State

P.C. Borooah, J.—This Rule is directed against an order dated November 2, 1976, passed by Shri G.B. Ghosh, Sessions Judge, Alipore, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1937 of 1976, directing the accused Petitioners to furnish fresh bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of Rs. 5,000 each, one of such sureties to be local, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.

The accused Petitioners Satikanta Guha and Indranath Guha were granted bail by a Bench of this Court on July 7, 1976, arid the accused Petitioner Ramendra Nath Lahiri was also granted bail on July 16, 1976, after submission of the charge-sheet. The accused Petitioner Pritilata Guha was granted bail by a learned Magistrate on May 29, 1976, but this Court by an order dated June 14,1976, made certain modifications in the terms of the bail granted by the learned Magistrate.

It is submitted by Mr. Sankardas Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused Petitioners, that the learned Sessions Judge''s order directing the accused Petitioners to furnish fresh bail bonds tantamounted to cancellation of this Court''s orders granting them bail and as such, the order was without jurisdiction. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State has very fairly conceded that in view of this Court''s decision in the case of Balai Mistri and Anr. v. The State (1976) C.H.N. 837 there cannot be any question of the Sessions Judge''s cancelling an order for bail granted by this Court at the time of commitment and if the learned Sessions Judge by his order intended to do so, he was clearly wrong. The learned Advocate-General has, however, contended that it was not the intention of the learned Sessions Judge to cancel the bail granted by this Court but to order them to execute fresh bail bonds which he was entitled to do.

A distinction has to be made between an order granting bail and an order directing the execution of a bond. A Magistrate may order an accused person, pursuant to an order granting bail, to execute a bond for a limited purpose, for instance, to cover the investigation stage or the pre-commitment stage. In that case, if the accused persons are committed to the Court of Sessions, the bail bonds which were executed earlier would not cover the post-commitment stage and as such, the accused persons must necessarily be required to execute fresh bail bonds. That does not mean that the order granting bail is cancelled.

In the instant case, it appears from the terms of the bail-bonds executed by the accused Petitioners Satikanta Guha, Indranath Guha and Ramendra Nath Lahiri that the bonds covered their appearances before the Judicial Magistrate at Alipore and/or before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, or before other Courts where the case may be transferred. The terms of the bail bonds executed by the accused Petitioner Pritilata Guha is to the same effect. The accused Petitioners have already furnished fresh bail bonds until the disposal of the case pursuant to the impugned order and as such, no further order of this Court is necessary.

In conclusion, I may add that if the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order intended to convey that the order of this Court granting bail to the Petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4, viz. Satikanta Guha, Indranath Guha and Ramendra Nath Lahiri, was intended only to cover the period of investigation, he was wrong. When a Bench of this Court grants bail, that bail will continue till it is cancelled by this Court under the provisions of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Rule is thus disposed of. Let the records be sent down forthwith.