Public Prosecutor's Opinion Must Be Based On Materials Collected By IO: Calcutta High Court Censures PP For Not Objecting To Bail In Cyber Crime Case

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday recorded its displeasure against the conduct of a public prosecutor who raised no objection to a bail application without the case diary being produced before the trial court.

The single judge bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh observed:

“I am unable to accept the conduct of the public prosecutor raising no objection without the case diary being produced before the court. The public prosecutor are representative of the State, they may have their opinion, but such opinion must be on the foundation of the materials collected by the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer must also be aware regarding the materials being produced before the court for assessment when the application for bail of the accused is being considered. No public prosecutor should keep the Investigating Officer in dark and raise no objection when the bail application is being moved.”

The petitioner-complainant filed an application before the High Court against the grant of bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CJM), Calcutta to the accused persons in connection with a Cyber Police Station Case.

The CJM had granted bail to the accused persons on the basis of two grounds:

1. the public prosecutor did not raise any objection.
2. notice under Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code which was served upon the accused was complied with.

The counsel appearing for the State informed the Court that the case diary was not produced before the CJM on the date of hearing.

The court said that "without taking into account the materials collected by the Investigating Agency in all cases as a general formula, it would not be prudent upon a court of law to grant permanent bail to all the accused persons."

"The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta henceforth would, if required, grant interim bail for the purposes of ascertaining the conduct of the accused persons when they surrender before the court and thereafter fix a subsequent date for production of the case diary for confirmation of the bail or refusal of the bail," it added.

Noting that the investigation in the case has already been completed and further custody of the accused is not required, the court said the prayer for cancellation of bail as made under the changed circumstances is not required to be interfered with. 

Case Title: X v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 90

Coram: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh

Click Here to Read/Download Order