DISTRICT: NORTH 24-PARGANAS
IN
THE COURT OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
AT
BIDHANNAGAR
NORTH
24 PARGANAS
G.R.
No. 230 of 2025
Arising out of Bidhannagar Women
Police Station Case No. 06 of 2025
dated 01.03.2025
Under Sections 385/506/509/120B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(with
subsequently added Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471/109/118/120 IPC)
|
State of West Bengal |
...Prosecution |
|
Versus |
...Accused Persons |
WRITTEN
OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED NOS. 2, 3 AND 4
AGAINST
THE STATE’S APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 480(5) OF THE
BHARATIYA
NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 FOR CANCELLATION OF
AD-INTERIM
BAIL GRANTED ON 13.03.2025
The accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 above
named most respectfully submit this written objection to the application filed
by the State seeking cancellation of the ad-interim bail granted to them by
this Learned Court on 13.03.2025, and state as follows;
1. The application for cancellation is wholly misconceived,
unsupported by any post-bail misconduct and liable to be rejected. The State
does not allege even a single breach of any bail condition, failure to appear,
attempt to abscond, non-cooperation with the investigation, intimidation of any
witness, interference with the course of justice, or tampering with any
document after the order dated 13.03.2025.
2. The only ground urged by the State is that, during the
subsequent investigation, Sections 419/420/465/467/468/471/109/118/120 IPC have
been added and some of those offences are described as serious. A later
alteration or addition of penal sections may require the Court to consider the
procedural consequences in accordance with law, but it does not retrospectively
convert a lawfully granted bail into misconduct, nor does it automatically
satisfy the stringent test for cancellation under Section 480(5) BNSS.
3. Cancellation of bail already granted stands on a footing
materially different from rejection of bail at the initial stage. The
jurisdiction is not appellate or review jurisdiction over the earlier order.
Liberty once granted cannot be withdrawn merely upon a re-appreciation of the
same accusation or because the prosecution has subsequently adopted a graver
legal characterisation of substantially the same factual narrative.
4. The FIR was registered on 01.03.2025 under Sections
385/506/509/120B IPC upon allegations arising out of the de facto complainant’s
prior employment at the College and School of Nursing, Techno India University,
West Bengal, and allegations relating to communications and institutional
records dating principally from May 2024.
5. On 13.03.2025, accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 voluntarily
surrendered before this Learned Court. Upon hearing the parties and perusing
the formal FIR, written complaint and the materials then produced, this Learned
Court expressly recorded that custodial detention was not necessary and granted
each accused ad-interim bail of Rs.1,000/- with one registered surety of the
like amount.
6. The accused persons accepted the jurisdiction of this
Learned Court, furnished bail bonds and have remained available to the process.
Their prayer for confirmation of bail has remained before this Learned Court.
The State’s present application does not disclose any circumstance showing that
the accused have abused the protection granted to them.
7. By
order dated 30.04.2026, this Learned Court disposed of the de facto
complainant’s application dated 13.06.2025 in terms of the direction of the
Hon’ble High Court dated 17.04.2026. The order permitted monitoring/further
investigation on the question of the appropriate penal provisions and directed
the Investigating Officer to proceed as per law. It did not cancel or vary the
bail of accused nos. 2, 3 and 4, direct their custody, record their guilt, or
find any post-bail misconduct. The matter was fixed on 30.06.2026 for their
appearance and hearing of their pending applications.
8. The order
dated 30.04.2026 records that, by an earlier order dated 31.10.2025, this
Learned Court had rejected the applications of the de facto complainant and the
prosecution seeking monitoring of the investigation and addition of sections.
It further records that the de facto complainant thereafter preferred a
criminal revision before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and that, by order
dated 17.04.2026, the Hon’ble High Court directed this Learned Court to dispose
of the de facto complainant’s application dated 13.06.2025 before proceeding
further with the case.
9. The order
further clarifies that the earlier order dated 31.10.2025 had been passed not
on the merits of the de facto complainant’s request, but because accused no. 1
had preferred CRR No. 1793 of 2025 for quashing of the proceeding and had
obtained protection against coercive action. Consequently, the application
dated 13.06.2025 was taken up on merits pursuant to the High Court’s procedural
direction.
10. Upon
perusing the High Court’s order, the record and the case diary, this Learned
Court observed that the aspect concerning the provisions of law, as ventilated
by the de facto complainant and the prosecution, did not appear to have been
properly investigated and that such omission might prejudice the de facto
complainant. On that limited basis, the prayer for monitoring of investigation
in relation to the relief sought in the application dated 13.06.2025 was
allowed, and the Investigating Officer was directed to proceed with the
investigation “as per law”.
11. Significantly,
the order dated 30.04.2026 is an order governing the manner and scope of
investigation. It neither adjudicates the truth of the allegations nor records
a prima facie finding that accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 committed the subsequently
added offences. The expression that an aspect had not been properly
investigated is a direction to investigate; it is not proof of the result of
that investigation.
12. The order
also does not record that accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 violated any bail condition
or obstructed the investigation. It does not direct their arrest or surrender
and does not cancel, suspend or modify the ad-interim bail dated 13.03.2025. On
the contrary, it fixes 30.06.2026 for their appearance and for hearing the
applications filed by them, except accused no. 1. The continuation of their
applications for hearing is inconsistent with the State’s attempt to portray
the order itself as an automatic cancellation event.
13. The
State’s subsequent reliance on the order dated 30.04.2026 must therefore remain
confined to its true scope. The order authorised a lawful investigation into
possible additional provisions; it did not dispense with the independent
statutory test under Section 480(5) BNSS. Any material collected thereafter may
be investigated and tested in accordance with law, but cancellation still
requires cogent grounds relating to the legality of the bail order or abuse of
liberty, neither of which is pleaded.
14. The
materials now relied upon by the State, including the Indian Nursing Council
letter dated 22.07.2022, emails of May 2024 and documents annexed in CRR No.
1793 of 2025, all relate to a period preceding the grant of bail. Their
investigation pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2026 cannot convert them into
supervening conduct on the part of the accused.
15. With reference to paragraph 1 of the State’s application,
the registration of the FIR and the broad narration of allegations are matters
of record. Save and except what is expressly admitted herein, every allegation,
inference and legal conclusion against these accused is denied. The prosecution
is put to strict proof of each ingredient of every alleged offence.
16. With reference to paragraph 2, it is admitted that accused
nos. 2, 3 and 4 surrendered on 13.03.2025 and were granted ad-interim bail. It
is submitted that the order was passed judicially after consideration of the
FIR, written complaint and available materials, with the specific finding that
custodial detention was unnecessary.
17. With reference to paragraphs 3(a) to 3(h), the State has
reproduced and expanded the de facto complainant’s theory but has not
identified the particular allegedly forged document, its maker, date, original
source, signature or seal said to be false, the person deceived, or the
property actually delivered by reason of deception. The correctness of the
added sections is a matter for investigation and, if a police report is filed,
for consideration at the appropriate stage; allegations cannot be treated as
established facts in a cancellation proceeding.
18. In particular, a charge of cheating by personation under
Section 419 IPC requires the statutory ingredients of personation; a mere
allegation that employment or faculty status was misrepresented does not,
without particulars, establish that an accused pretended to be another person.
Likewise, whether any particular appointment or relieving document answers the
statutory definition of “valuable security”, and whether any permission or
approval was “property” delivered because of deception, are mixed questions of
fact and law which the State has merely asserted.
19. With reference to paragraphs 4 to 8, the alleged conspiracy,
abetment and concealment are denied. The omnibus use of Sections 109, 118, 120
and 120B IPC cannot substitute for specific factual particulars showing
agreement, intentional aid, knowledge of a criminal design or voluntary
concealment. The mere addition of these provisions by the Investigating Officer
is neither proof of guilt nor proof that continued liberty would prejudice the
investigation.
20. With reference to paragraph 9, the Indian Nursing Council
letter dated 22.07.2022, even if taken at face value, only records an
institutional issue concerning simultaneous working and refusal to extend
suitability. It does not, by itself, identify which accused created which false
document, nor does it establish the essential mens rea for forgery, personation
or cheating. It predates the bail order and supplies no ground of post-bail
misuse.
21. With reference to paragraphs 10 and 11, exchange or
forwarding of emails in May 2024 cannot, without more, establish a criminal
conspiracy. As regards accused no. 4, the allegation is essentially that she
prepared a report and transmitted declarations in the discharge of an
institutional role. No overt act of forgery, extortion, threat or personal gain
has been particularised against her. All such communications predate the FIR
and were capable of investigation without taking the accused into custody.
22. With reference to paragraph 12 and the prayer, seriousness
of an accusation is relevant but cannot be the sole basis for cancellation of
bail already enjoyed without misuse. The State’s own application records that
the originally alleged offences were “not serious in nature” and bases the
cancellation prayer exclusively on the subsequently added sections. Such
addition, unaccompanied by any allegation of obstruction or breach, does not
meet the settled threshold for cancellation.
23. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for cancellation of bail already granted, and identified interference
with the due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade
justice, and abuse of the concession granted as material considerations.
24. In Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court explained that bail may be set aside where the grant itself is perverse,
illegal or made by ignoring material of substantial nature; that principle does
not authorise routine cancellation merely because the prosecution subsequently
advances a more severe formulation of the accusation.
25. In Abdul Basit alias Raju v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary,
(2014) 10 SCC 754, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the court granting
bail cannot review its own order and that cancellation requires supervening
circumstances or misuse, while a challenge to an unjustified bail order lies
before a superior forum.
26. In Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC
743, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that cancellation requires cogent and
overwhelming circumstances, such as evasion of justice, interference with
investigation, intimidation of witnesses, likelihood of absconding or abuse of
bail. No such circumstance is pleaded here.
27. The above principles have been consistently restated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Imran v. Mohammed Bhava, (2022) 11 SCC 695:
bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner, and the
distinction between an appeal against an unjustified grant and cancellation for
subsequent misconduct must be maintained.
28. The State does not challenge the order dated 13.03.2025
before a superior court as perverse or illegal. Instead, it invokes Section
480(5) BNSS before the same Learned Court while disclosing no abuse of liberty.
The application therefore impermissibly seeks a review of the earlier
assessment under the label of cancellation.
29. All alleged acts relate to 2022-May 2024 and are documentary
or institutional in nature. The FIR followed on 01.03.2025. The accused
surrendered on 13.03.2025 and have remained on bail for a substantial period.
No fresh offence or untoward incident after release is alleged. The prolonged,
unblemished compliance itself weighs strongly against incarceration.
30. The evidence described by the State consists principally of
letters, emails, institutional records and documents already obtained or
obtainable from independent bodies. The State does not identify any document
destroyed, altered or withheld after bail, any witness approached by the
accused, or any investigative direction disobeyed by them. Custodial detention
is therefore neither shown to be necessary nor proportionate.
31. The presumption of innocence continues. Cancellation at this
stage solely because a penal provision carrying a higher punishment has been
added would convert the label of an offence into a substitute for the judicial
test and would inflict pre-trial detention without a demonstrated necessity.
32. Without prejudice, if this Learned Court considers that the
addition of any non-bailable offence calls for a fresh bond, additional
condition, appearance before the Investigating Officer, or a formal application
concerning the added sections, these accused are ready and willing to comply
with every reasonable direction. Such safeguards would fully protect the
investigation and constitute a proportionate alternative to cancellation.
In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Learned Court may graciously be pleased to;
(a) reject
and/or dismiss the application filed by the State under Section 480(5) BNSS for
cancellation of the ad-interim bail granted to accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 on
13.03.2025;
(b) confirm
and continue the bail of accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 upon the existing terms and
conditions;
(c) in the
alternative and without prejudice, permit the accused persons to furnish fresh
or additional bail bonds and/or impose such reasonable conditions as may be
necessary in relation to the added penal sections, instead of directing them
into custody; and
(d) pass such
further order or orders as this Learned Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
And
for this act of kindness, the accused persons as in duty bound shall ever pray.
|
Place: Bidhannagar |
Accused
No. 2 |
|
Date: ____/____/2026 |
Accused
No. 3 |
|
Accused
No. 4 |
|
VERIFICATION
We,
Debojita Chatterjee Chakraborty, Gopa Paul, & Piyali Biswas, accused no. 2,
3, & 4, in the above-mentioned case, do hereby verify that the statements
made in paragraphs 1 to 26 are true to my knowledge and belief, based on the
case records and legal advice received, and that I have not suppressed any
material fact.
Verified at Bidhannagar on this ____
day of ____________, 2026.
Deponent
/ Accused
Identified
by me,
Advocate
No comments:
Post a Comment