[Grievous Hurt] Calcutta High Court Criticises Trial Court For Relying Solely On Party's Submissions, Not Calling For Injury Report

The Calcutta High Court recently took exception to a Sessions Court order solely relying on prosecutor's failure to raise objections to grant of bail to accused in a case of grievous hurt and rejecting the complainant'splea for cancellation of bail, without calling for an injury report.

A single bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held:

It is unfortunate that considering the nature of offences alleged, the Court relied upon the submission of the APP, without calling for the injury report. It is the duty of the Court to ensure justice and not rely totally on the submission of either party. As to why the injury report was still not in the case diary is best known to the prosecution. Even on 04.09.2019, when the learned Sessions Judge considered and rejected the prayer for cancellation of bail, there was no injury report in the case diary as noted by the Sessions Judge, though as of now it’s part of the case diary at page 21, as seen by this Court. Though at that stage there has been prima facie abuse of the process of law/Court before the Trial Court as discussed, but considering the present circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed for at this stage in the interest of justice.

The Court however refused to reverse the decision and directed the trial court to proceed with trial expeditiously.

The present dispute arose in 2019, when the complainant/petitioner was allegedly ‘suddenly attacked’ by the respondents/opposite parties “along with about 200 unholy associates”, who entered her home and started ransacking it. It was argued by the petitioner that the miscreants stole valuable items from her, and that when the complainant resisted them, they started assaulting her with bamboo sticks and iron rods causing her a head injury, leaving her needing eight stitches.

It was further alleged that taking advantage of the helpless condition of the complainant, the accused “violated her privacy”, and that when her husband tried to rescue the petitioner, he was physically assaulted. The petitioner alleged that the accused attempted to outrage the modesty of her sister-in-law, and that they even injured her 82-year old father-in-law.

The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint against the respondents, and the other two hundred people for various offences under Sections 448 (house-trespass), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was subsequently discovered by the petitioner that the accused had been taken into custody, they were later released on bail by the ACJM, Barrackpore, on the ground that the assistant public prosecutor had not raised any objection to the grant of bail, while drawing an “unreasonable conclusion” that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents were civil in nature.

It was submitted that the petitioner thereafter preferred an application before the Sessions Judge, Barasat under Section 439(2) of the CrPC for cancellation of bail, which was subsequently turned down, and thereafter challenged in the present revision.

The petitioner submitted that upon release, the accused/respondents began threatening her with dire consequences while pressurising her to not pursue the case any further, and that without cancellation of the accused’s bail, she would suffer irreparable injury.

Upon perusing the case diary placed on record by the State, the Court noted that the accused was granted bail the same day that he was produced before the Court, since the assistant public prosecutor did not raise any objections regarding the same.

In rebuking the trial courts actions of determining the outcome of the plea for cancellation of bail, without even calling for the injury report, the Court said that although there had been an abuse of process before the Trial Court, in light of the present stage of investigation, it was not inclined to pass any orders for cancellation of bail.

The criminal revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Case: Bithika Sil v. Kartick Paik & Ors.

Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 217

Click Here To Read/Download Order