Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently upheld the cancellation of bail by the sessions court on the ground that before the sessions court the accused had suppressed the fact that his earlier bail plea was rejected by the high court.

The single judge bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta was hearing a criminal revision petition against an order dated 8th May 2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipu.

The bench observed that the sessions judge had exercised his jurisdiction correctly and there was no illegality in the impugned order passed by the sessions court.

“The power u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted earlier is discretionary. In the instant case, the Sessions Judge has exercised its jurisdiction very correctly. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order. There is no justification to entertain the instant criminal revision for rejection of the impugned order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, u/s 439 (2) Cr. P.C,” Justice Samanta said.

The petitioner was one of the accused in a case filed under Sections 458, 436, 302, 120B, and 506 of the IPC. The accused (petitioner) was detained and brought into custody during the investigation. On September 25, 2017, however, he was granted bail by the sessions court.

After that, the de facto complainant filed an application under Section 439 (2) Cr. P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-petitioner by order dated September 25, 2017.

On May 08, 2018, Additional District and Sessions Judge cancelled the bail order.

Hence, the accused filed a criminal revision petition before the high court against cancellation of bail.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the sessions judge was palpably illegal and irregular. The sessions court had misread and misconstrued section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., he argued.

Further, it was stated that the observation of the sessions judge regarding the fact that on the earlier occasion, the bail prayer of the present petitioner was turned down by the high court was not logically correct. Furthermore, he argued that the petitioner never suppressed the earlier order of the high court.

The advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that the impugned order passed by the sessions judge suffered no illegality. At the time of making prayer before the sessions judge, for bail, the present petitioner-accused suppressed the fact that his bail prayer was turned down by the high court, the counsel contended.

Further, it was submitted if the fact of rejection of bail prayer was not suppressed, the prayer for bail would not have been granted.

The court after hearing the parties observed, “It appears from the impugned order that while submitting the bail prayer the present petitioner on affidavit stated no application for bail has been either rejected by the High Court or pending for disposal before the High Court and on the basis of such declaration the order of bail was granted.”

“The Sessions court while delivering the impugned order held that the suppression of the High Court's earlier rejection of the bail petition was a fraud practice upon a court,” Justice Samanta said.

Further, the court observed the power to grant bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. is under the concurrent jurisdiction of the high court and court of sessions. Thus, to maintain judicial discipline and avoid differences of opinion, the applicant must state whether his previous bail application was pending or refused by the high court, court said.

Accordingly, the court upheld the impugned order of sessions court and disposed of the criminal revision petition filed by the accused.

Case Title: Sk.Farid @ Fariduddi vs. The State of West Bengal.

Statute: The Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code