Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High recently expressed displeasure over the conduct of a Public Prosecutor who raised no objection to a bail application that had been allowed without the case diary being produced before the trial court.

The Single Judge bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh said that the public prosecutors being the representative of a state, may have their opinion but such opinion must be on the foundation of the materials collected by Investigating Officer (IO).

The observation was made in a petition by the complainant in a cybercrime case against the grant of bail to the accused persons by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Calcutta.

Bail was granted to the accused persons on two grounds:

1. No objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor.
2. Notice under Section 41A of CrPC which was served upon the accused was complied with.

The high court while hearing the matter said, “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 representatives 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 of 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 counsel appearing for State informed the court that the case diary was not produced before the CMM on the date of the hearing.

Justice Ghosh said that when the court is dealing with the bail application of the accused, the IO must be aware of the materials that are being produced. He also said that no public prosecutor should keep the IO in dark. Without considering all the materials by the Investigation agency or Investigating officer in cases, it would be treated as irresponsible behaviour of the court of law to grant permanent bail, the judge said.

Accordingly, the bench held that the prayer for cancellation of bail as made before the court under the changed circumstances was not required to be interfered with. The bench then disposed of the bail application.

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

Statue: Section 41A of CrPC