Observing that the power of granting bail under Section 439 CrPC is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of Sessions, the Calcutta High Court ruled that the applicant is duty-bound to mention whether his earlier bail prayer was either pending or rejected.

Stating that the power under Section 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail granted earlier is discretionary, the Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta observed that "the application for bail u/s 439 CrPC should be filed with an affidavit of the applicant regarding the fact that whether his earlier bail prayer was pending or rejected by the upper court".

Advocate Debasish Roy appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Binoy Kumar Panda appeared for the Respondent.

In a nutshell, the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with others in connection with offences under Sections 458/436/302/120B/506 of IPC. During the investigation, the accused was arrested and taken into custody. However, his prayer for bail under Section 439 CrPC was allowed by the Sessions Judge. Later, an application under Section 439(2) of CrPC was filed by the de facto complainant for cancellation of the bail. After considering the same, the Sessions Judge allowed the application for cancellation of bail and the order granting bail in favor of the Petitioner was cancelled. Hence, the present revision petition.

After going through the evidence, the Bench found that the bail prayer of the present Petitioner was rejected by the High Court when the investigation of the case was in progress.

Further, the Sessions Judge had granted the bail prayer of the accused-Petitioner after submission of the charge sheet, added the Bench.

The Bench noted that while submitting the bail prayer, the 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 based on the such declaration the order of bail was granted.

Further, “Sessions Judge, in passing the Impugned Order is of view that the suppression of earlier rejection of bail prayer by the High court is a fraud practice upon a court”, mentioned the Bench.

The High Court elucidated that it’s the solemn authority of the Sessions Judge, to consider the bail prayer of an accused under Section 439 CrPC independently, and at the same time it is the duty of the applicant to inform the Sessions Judge, regarding the fate of his earlier application of bail.

Holding that the Sessions Judge has exercised its jurisdiction very correctly and there appears no illegality in the its order, the High Court refused to entertain the criminal revision for rejection of the order passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 439(2) CrPC.

Cause Title: Farid v. State of West Bengal

Click here to read /download Judgment