Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Bail In Murder Case Over Suppression Of Fact Regarding Earlier Rejection

The Calcutta High Court upheld an order of cancellation of bail passed by the Sessions Court on the ground that the accused supressed the fact before the Sessions Court that his earlier bail prayer was turned down by the High Court.

The single judge bench comprising Justice Subhendu Samanta observed:

“The power of granting bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. is within the concurrent jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Sessions. Thus, to maintain the judicial discipline as well as to avoid difference of finding of opinion, the applicant is duty bound to mentioned whether his earlier bail prayer was either pending or rejected by the High Court or not. Its solemn authority of the Sessions Judge, to consider the bail prayer of an accused u/s 439 Cr.P.C. independently. At the same time it is the duty of the applicant to inform the Learned Sessions Judge, regarding the fate of his earlier application of bail.”

The petitioner is an accused along with others in a case under Section 458, Section 436, Section 302, Section 120B and Section 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused-petitioner was arrested and taken into custody. However, he was granted bail by the Sessions Court on September 25, 2017.

An application was filed by the complainant under Section 439 (2) for the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-petitioner. The Sessions Court on May 8, 2018 allowed the application for cancellation of bail and the order of granting bail in favour of the present petitioner was cancelled. Hence, the accused-petitioner filed the present revision petition before the High Court.

The petitioner contended that the High Court considered the bail prayer of the petitioner at the stage prior to the submission of charge sheet and the order of bail by the Sessions Court was granted in favour of the present petitioner after submission of charge sheet.

It was therefore argued that the observation of the Sessions Court regarding the fact that on the earlier occasion the bail prayer of the present petitioner was turned down by the High Court is not logically correct.

The court noted that while submitting the bail prayer the petitioner on affidavit stated no application for bail has been either rejected by the High Court or is pending for disposal before the High Court and on the basis of such declaration, the order of bail was granted by the Sessions Court.

It was further noted by the bench that the Sessions Court while passing the impugned order was of the view that the suppression of earlier rejection of bail prayer by the High court was a fraud practice upon a court.

“It is true that the bail prayer of the present petitioner was rejected by the Honb’le High Court when the investigation of the case was in progress. The Sessions Judge has granted the bail prayer of the present accused petitioner after submission of charge sheet. It is the dictate of the law that the application for bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. should be filed with an affidavit of the applicant regarding the fact that whether his earlier bail prayer was pending or rejected by the upper court,” it added.

Thus, the bench upheld the impugned order of the Sessions Court and dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner.

Case Title: Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin v. The State of West Bengal

Coram: Justice Subhendu Samanta

Click Here to Read/Download Order