29.02.2024
Item No.37
Ct. No. 29
CHC
C.R.M. 1741 of 2021
In Re:- An application under Section 439(2) read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
And
In the matter of : Shankar Paul
...… petitioner
Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta,
Ms. Sofia Nesar,
Mr. Santanu Sett,
Ms. Hakima Khatoon
….for the petitioner
Ms. Sayanti Santra
….for the State
Affidavits filed in Court be taken on record.
Petitioner seeks cancellation of order no.3 dated March
20, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge in Criminal Misc.
Case No.464 of 2019 granting anticipatory bail to the private
opposite party.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that, the private opposite party approached the jurisdictional
Court for grant of anticipatory bail by making an application.
He refers to such application. He submits that, such application
was taken up for consideration by the jurisdictional Court on
February 8, 2019 and thereafter on February 15, 2019,
February 21, 2019 and ultimately such application was rejected
being not pressed on February 27, 2019. He points out that, de
facto complainant was present during the first round of the
2
prayer for anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the private respondent
filed an application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc.
Case No.464 of 2019 where, the impugned order was passed.
He draws the attention of the Court to the averments made in
paragraph-5 of such application as also the affidavit portion of
such application. He submits that, although, the factum of
filing of the first application for anticipatory bail was stated,
however, the fact that, such application was rejected as not
pressed was not alluded to. Attention of the Court granting
anticipatory bail by the impugned order was not drawn to such
fact. He contends that, once the application was heard-in-part
on at least two days, the endorsement of ‘not pressed’ and the
rejection of not pressed by the learned Judge of the first
application tantamount to a rejection on merits. Second
application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable.
State is represented.
We find from the records that, initially an application for
anticipatory bail was filed by the private respondent being
Criminal Misc. Case No.203 of 2019 which was rejected as not
pressed by an order dated February 27, 2019. The de facto
complainant was represented in such proceeding.
Thereafter, the private respondent filed another
application for anticipatory bail being Criminal Misc. Case
No.464 of 2019 in which the impugned order was passed.
The second application contains an averment with regard
to the first application. It also contains an affidavit to the effect
that, no application was filed either before the jurisdictional
3
Court or the High Court and that such application was neither
pending nor rejected.
Learned jurisdictional Court proceeded to grant
anticipatory bail to the private respondent on the finding that
there were elements of civil dispute involved between the private
parties.
Such finding of the learned jurisdictional Court is not
assailed in this proceeding. What is assailed is the conduct of
the private opposite party in suppressing the factum of the
rejection of the earlier application for anticipatory bail.
With respect, we are unable to accept such contention of
the petitioner before us. While making the second application
the private opposite party alluded to the first application and
the fact that, it was rejected as not pressed. Merits of the case
in the first application was not discussed as transpiring from
the orders which are made available on record passed in the
first application.
In such circumstances, we find no material irregularity
requiring our interference.
C.R.M. 1741 of 2021 is dismissed without any order as to
costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)