Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, examined the legality of a bail order granted in a case involving allegations of forgery and misappropriation of records. The petitioners sought to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to challenge the bail granted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. The court considered whether such inherent powers could be exercised when a statutory remedy under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. was available.

The matter arose from a first information report (FIR) registered as Jiban Tala P.S. Case No. 335 of 2021, dated October 12, 2021. The accused were charged under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 406, 467, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on allegations that they had fraudulently recorded their names in the Record of Rights using forged documents. The prosecution submitted that the accused conspired to forge official documents to obtain an undue advantage in land transactions.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alipore granted bail to the accused in BGR Case No. 4130 of 2021 on October 29, 2021, upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1000/- each. The Magistrate stated: “I find that the allegation is civil in nature and no such allegation against the accused for which his detention is required.” The State challenged this order, arguing that the allegations were serious and that custodial interrogation was required for further investigation. The prosecution submitted that the lower court did not properly assess the need for detention and failed to hear the Public Prosecutor before granting bail.

The court examined the applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and whether it could be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy existed. The judgment noted: “It is no doubt true that Section 482 of the Code starts with the words ‘nothing in this Code,’ which indicates that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the main question which falls for determination in the present application is whether, when there is a specific remedy provided in the statute, inherent power under Section 482 can be resorted to.”

Citing precedents, the court referred to Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, State of Maharashtra vs. Pankaj Jagshi Gangar (2022) 2 SCC 66, and Puran vs. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338, which discuss judicial principles regarding bail revocation. The court also referred to Satya Narayan Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2001) 8 SCC 607, noting: “Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide that inherent jurisdiction can be exercised notwithstanding any other provision contained in any other enactment.”

Additionally, the court examined Mohit @ Sonu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 7 SCC 789, which states that inherent powers should be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances. The judgment referred to Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137, which classified bail orders as interlocutory, allowing correction through statutory remedies under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C., which permits the granting court to recall bail if necessary.

The court examined the Magistrate’s reasoning for granting bail and stated: “The learned Magistrate, after meticulous examination of the petition of complaint, directed the police to start investigation, since it discloses cognizable offense. However, at the time of hearing the bail application, he held without assigning any cogent reason that the dispute is civil in nature.” The judgment also noted that the Magistrate granted bail “without hearing the Public Prosecutor, when the accused persons are booked under Section 420/465/468/471/406/467/409/120B of the IPC.”

After considering the arguments, the court dismissed both criminal revision petitions, stating: “In such view of the matter, the petitioner will have no cause for prejudice if they are given liberty to approach before the jurisdictional magistrate under the statute with the same prayer.”

The judgment stated that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from filing a similar application under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. The court directed that “in the event of making such prayer, the court below will dispose of such prayer in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both parties to contest and without being influenced by any observation made herein.”

Case Title: State of West Bengal vs. Subrata Mondal & Anr.
                   with Khokan Mondal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: C.R.R. 312 of 2022 and C.R.R. 2307 of 2021
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]