Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. He urged that the respondents are influencing the trial and are not letting the proceedings to be continued. On numerous dates of hearing, the accused respondents have failed to appear before the trial Court, which is struggling to even frame the charges against the accused respondents. He further submitted that the accused respondents were specifically named in the statement of the complainant and the victim lady, and as such, looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations and the propensity of the accused respondents to abscond and/or adversely affect the proceedings of the trial and the imminent probability of the witnesses being threatened and tampered, the High Court should have refrained from granting bail to the accused respondents.
11. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents, being the accused persons, opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Banerjee. He contended that the High Court has analysed the factual matrix in an apropos manner while distinguishing the case of the respondents and enlarging them on bail. The fact remains that neither in the highly belated FIR nor in the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, any specific role has been assigned to the respondents herein and thus, there is no justification for entertaining these appeals and interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondents. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeals.
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the material placed on record.
13. Law is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail once granted to the accused should normally not be interfered with/cancelled unless there exist circumstances giving rise to an inference that the bail has been procured by practicing fraud or mis-representation; that the allegations against the accused are so grave that the same have an adverse impact on the society at large and shake the conscience of the Court; that releasing the accused respondents on bail is likely to create a sense of fear and terror amongst the society or that the accused while on bail may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 1020
14. Having regard to the facts enumerated above, we feel that the present one is a case wherein the allegations against the accused respondents are so grave that the same shake the conscience of the Court. Furthermore, there is an imminent propensity of the accused persons adversely affecting the proceedings of the trial. It is undisputed that the complainant approached the Sadaipur Police Station on 3rd May, 2021 for registering a complaint in respect of incident dated 2nd May, 2021, but the officer-in-charge refused to register the FIR conveying that he and his family members should go away from the village for their own safety. Apparently, this approach of the local police lends credence to the apprehension of the complainant about the clout and influence which the accused respondents bear over the locality and even the police.
15. The FIR in the present case came to be registered only upon intervention by the High Court vide judgment dated 19th August, 2021 in a batch of writ petitions, directing the CBI to investigate all the cases where the allegations involve crime of murder and/or crime against women regarding rape/attempt to rape.
16. Mr. Banerjee had submitted that even the officers of the CBI were not receiving the required cooperation from the local police and thus, culmination of the investigation took almost one and a half years.
17. Having gone through the contents of the FIR, we find that there is hardly any scope for distinguishing the case of the respondents and that of the accused to whom the specific allegation of disrobing the complainant’s wife is attributed. The concerted attack on the complainant’s house was launched on the day of election results with the sole objective of wreaking vengeance because he had supported the saffron party. This is a grave circumstance which convinces us that the accused persons including the respondents herein were trying to terrorize the members of the opposite political party whom the accused respondents were supporting. The reprehensible manner in which the incident was perpetrated shows the vengeful attitude of the accused persons and their avowed objective to subdue the supporters of the opposite party into submission by hook or by crook. The dastardly offence was nothing short of a grave attack on the roots of democracy. [2025] 5 S.C.R. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sekh Jamir Hossain and Ors.
18. There is prima facie material to establish that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted attack on the house of the complainant vandalising the same and looting away the household articles. The complainant’s wife was viciously pulled by the hair and was disrobed. The accused persons were about to assault her sexually when the lady gathered courage to pour kerosene on her body and gave a threat of self-immolation on which the accused persons including the respondents herein fled away from the complainant’s house.
19. The charge-sheet has been filed way back in the year 2022 and till date, the trial has not budged an inch. The prosecution has alleged that this delay is mostly attributable to non-cooperation by the accused persons including the respondents herein which fact is palpably established from record.
20. In this background, we feel that there is no possibility of a fair and impartial trial being conducted, if the accused respondents are allowed to remain on bail. Thus, on both counts, i.e., (i) the nature and gravity of the offence which is nothing short of an attack on the roots of democracy and (ii) the imminent likelihood of the accused adversely affecting a fair trial, the bail granted to the accused respondents has to be cancelled.
21. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 24th January, 2023 and 13th April, 2023 deserve to be and are hereby reversed. The bail granted to the accused respondents by the High Court is accordingly cancelled. The accused respondents shall surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from today, failing which, the trial Court shall adopt coercive measures to secure their presence. Upon surrendering/being arrested, the accused respondents shall be remanded to custody.
22. The trial Court shall expedite the proceedings and will try to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, any stay orders have been passed on the proceedings before the trial Court by any higher forum including the High Court, the same shall be deemed to have been vacated. The Home Secretary, State of West Bengal and the Director General of Police, State of West Bengal shall ensure that proper protection is 1022 provided to the complainant and all other material witnesses so that they can freely appear and depose at the trial without any fear or apprehension. Any violation of the above direction may be reported to this Court by the appellant-CBI or the complainant for suitable action.
23. Additionally, the observations made in this judgment and in the orders of the High Court shall not prejudice the trial in any manner.
24. The appeals are allowed in these terms.
25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan