Kolkata, The Calcutta High Court cancelled bail granted to a builder in a cheating case by a lower court, holding that the liberty of an accused cannot be protected by an order “born in sin”.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that a bail order which is unsigned or partially initialled, unreasoned regarding the specific objections of a victim, and indifferent to the history of witness intimidation, is a perverse order that the high court is duty-bound to strike down.
“This case presents a disturbing instance where the liberty of an accused was prioritised over the safety of a victim through an order that fails the most basic tests of procedural authentication,” the high court observed.
The high court also asked the Director of the West Bengal State Judicial Academy to include a specific module on the “Recording of Judicial Orders and Authentication of Records” in the induction and refresher courses for judicial officers, emphasising the legal consequences of non-compliance with the criminal rules and orders.
Justice Kumar, cancelling the bail granted to the accused builder in a breach of trust and cheating case by a Sealdah court magistrate in 2018, said that the order of bail suffers from a dual infirmity – procedural and substantive.
“Therefore, this court arrives at the legal conclusion that the liberty of an accused, while precious, cannot be protected by an order that is ‘born in sin’, that is, an order passed in defiance of the High Court’s administrative and judicial discipline,” Justice Kumar observed.
Justice Kumar, in a judgment on March 6, set aside the order dated May 7, 2018, and all subsequent orders confirming the bail of Suvendu Saha.
The court also directed the commissioner of police, Kolkata, to ensure adequate and continuous protection for the Petitioner and her family.
The accused was arrested on May 3, 2018, only after intervention by the high court, but he was granted bail by the Sealdah court four days later.
“This court finds that the Learned Magistrate exercised his discretion arbitrarily and in defiance of binding precedents,” Justice Kumar said.
The petitioner, an elderly widow and tenant of a house in north Kolkata, had entered into a tripartite agreement with the construction company owned by the builder in November 2014, under which the developer was obligated to shift her to a temporary accommodation, bear the monthly rental charges, and reinstate her in a self-contained flat within 24 months.
The petitioner stated that once the builder obtained possession of her tenanted residence for redevelopment, he unilaterally ceased the payment of displacement allowances and failed to deliver the promised flat, prompting the filing of a criminal complaint with the Cossipore police station in north Kolkata.
Cancelling the bail granted to Saha, the court observed that the sanctity of a judicial order rests not just on the wisdom of its content, but on the rigour of its form.
“When a subordinate court ignores the mandatory procedural safeguards established by this court to ensure the authenticity of judicial records, the resulting order is not merely irregular; it is legally infirm,” Justice Kumar observed.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
