No. 172 of 2021 · Calcutta High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 437, 437(6), 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Disaster Management Act s. 58(1)
- Constitution of India art. 21
Key paragraphs
- Para 1515. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion further detention of the petitioner would infract his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score alone.
- Para 1616. Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, South 24 Parganas at Alipore on condition that the petitioner…
- Para 1818. The application being CRM (DB) 2942 of 2023 is disposed of. (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Judgment
Mr. Anirban Guhathakurta Ms. Koel Mukherjee Mr. Anurag Sardar Mr. M Murshed Ms. Sayan Mukherjee …… for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury Mr. Mianak Gupta …… for the State Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. A Rakshit …… for the OP RE : CRR 2802 of 2023
During hearing of bail application of co-accused Susanta Das and Shantanu Manna., this court noticed that bail had been granted to the respondent Ashok Roy referring to sub-section 6 of section 437 Cr.P.C. The said provision relates to a case triable by magistrate but the present case is a sessions triable one.
The provision lays down in the event in a magistrate triable case trial is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recoding evidence, the accused shall be released on bail unless for reasons recoded in writing the Magistrate declined to do so.
The said provision is a statutory acknowledgment of right of an accused to speedy trial particularly when he is in custody. 2
In the present case, the petitioner had been in custody for more than 647 days i.e. more than one and half year. Only two out of 71 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge sheet had been examined.
In view of the inordinate delay in trial petitioner pleaded for bail and the same found favour with this court. Under the erroneous impression all offences are triable by a magistrate, reference was made to section 437(6) Cr.P.C.
Mr. Ganguly has rightly submitted the essence of the bail order was the inordinate delay in trial resulting in breach of the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reference to section 437(6) Cr.P.C was merely incidental.
Allegations levelled against the petitioner are no doubt grave. He was the owner of the premises which had been used to set up fake vaccination camp during pandemic. But the prosecution has not responded with adequate alacrity and the trial appears to have meandered resulting in prolonged incarceration. These circumstance weighed with the court while granting bail to the respondent-accused. There is no allegation that the respondent-accused after his release had sought adjournment or delayed the trial. On the other hand prosecutor’s role is a matter of serious concern.
We are informed since May 2023 no witnesses have been examined.
Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to set aside the order granting bail to the respondent-accused. 3
We, however, direct the observation “offences are triable by magistrate” and reference to section 437(6) Cr.P.C in the order dated 25.7.2023 be expunged.
With these directions, the Rule is discharged. Re : CRM (DB) 2942 of 2023
Petitioner is in custody for 817 days. It is submitted there is slow progress in the trial. He prays for bail.
Learned lawyer for the State submits two witnesses have been examined.
We have considered the materials on record. Petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of time. There is slow progress in the trial. Only two out of 71 witnesses cited in the charge sheet have been examined.
Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion further detention of the petitioner would infract his fundamental right to speedy trial and he is entitled to bail on this score alone.
Operative part
Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, South 24 Parganas at Alipore on condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.
In the event he fails to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this court. 4
The application being CRM (DB) 2942 of 2023 is disposed of. (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail upon
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 437, 437(6), 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Disaster Management Act — s. 58(1); Constitution of India — art. 21.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.