The Calcutta High Court expressed its dismay 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 Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh while expressing its dismay over the fact that no objection was raised by the public prosecutor, said that “...The public prosecutor are representative 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 regarding 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.”

Advocate Apalak Basu appeared for the petitioner, Advocate Moyukh Mukherjee appeared for the opposite party no. 2 and Advocate Ranabir Roy Chowdhary appeared for the State.

In this case, the plea was moved by the complainant against the bail granted to the accused persons by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) in a cybercrime case. Bail was granted on two grounds, namely:-

  • No objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor.
  • Notice under Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code which was served upon the accused was complied with.

The High Court noted that the case diary was not produced before the CMM on the date of hearing and said that the conduct of the public prosecutor raising no objection without the case diary being produced before the court could not be accepted. The Investigating Officer must be aware of the materials that were being produced before the CMM, and should not be kept in the dark.

“Without taking into account the materials collected by the Investigating Agency in all cases as a general formula, it would not be prudent upon a court of law to grant permanent bail to all the accused persons.” said the Court.

The High Court further noted that the investigation had been completed and further custody of the accused was not required. Therefore, the prayer for cancellation of bail under the changed circumstance was not required to be interfered with.

Accordingly, the Application was disposed of.

Cause Title- X v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order