The Calcutta High Court in the case X v. The State of West Bengal And Anr observed and has recorded its displeasure against the conduct of a public prosecutor who raised no objection wherein a bail application was moved without the case diary which is being produced before the trial court.
The single judge bench headed by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh in the case observed that this court is unable to accept the conduct of the public prosecutor raising no objection without the case diary being produced before the court. Therefore, the public prosecutor are representative of the State, they may have their opinion, but such kind of 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. The court stated that no public prosecutor should keep the Investigating Officer in dark and no objection should be raised when the bail application is being moved.
Further, the application is filed before the High Court by the petitioner-complainant against the grant of bail by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta to the accused persons in connection with the case of Cyber Police Station.
Therefore, the bail has been granted by the CJM to the accused persons on the basis of two grounds:
The public prosecutor did not raise any such objection
The accused was served notice under Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code
The court was also informed by the counsel appearing for the State that the case diary was not produced on the date of hearing before the CJM.
Further, the court stated that without taking into account the materials collected by the Investigating Agency in all cases as a general formula, the same would be prudent upon a court of law foe granting permanent bail to all the accused persons.
The court noted that the investigation in the case has already been completed and further custody of the accused is not being required, adding to it, the court stated that the prayer for cancellation of bail application moved as made under the changed circumstances, the same is not required to be interfered with.
