‘Born in sin’: Quashing bail granted to developer, Calcutta High Court directs training for judges after ‘flawed’ order

‘Order fails basic tests’

• 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”, but it is legally “infirm”.
• 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 judicial order is a public document. Consequently, the signature of the presiding officer must be legible and full.
• If an order is born in violation of the principles of natural justice and mandatory procedural rules, it is void ab initio (void from the very start).

• The order of interim bail suffers from a dual infirmity—procedural and substantive, since there is a total disregard for the authentication protocols and the failure to recognise the statutory rights of the “victim”.
• 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 to prevent a “miscarriage of justice”.

• The accused is directed to surrender before the trial court within 48 hours from the communication of this order.
• Judicial discipline requires that district courts strictly adhere to the formats and protocols established by the high court to ensure the transparency and integrity of judicial records.
• All district Judges are directed to ensure compliance by periodically inspecting order sheets.
• Any persistent default by any judicial officer in signing order sheets in full or taking external assistance for recording orders shall be reported to the high court on the administrative side for the initiation of appropriate departmental proceedings.
• The director of the West Bengal State Judicial Academy is directed 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.
• The interim bail order passed by the magistrate has “no mention of threat”.
• Such reasoning is a superficial assessment of the gravity of the matter and ignores the reality that in cases of white-collar crime and criminal breach of trust, the protection of the victim and the integrity of the evidence are paramount.

Issue

• The petitioner claimed to be a lawful tenant of premises situated at Gopal Chandra Chatterjee Road and entered into a tripartite development agreement in 2011 with Suvendu Saha, the proprietor of M/s Sree Krishna Construction.
• Under the terms of the said agreement, the developer was obligated to shift the petitioner to a temporary accommodation, bear the monthly rental charges, and eventually reinstate her in a self-contained flat of 200 sq ft within 24 months.
• The petitioner claimed that once the developer obtained possession of her tenanted residence for the purpose of redevelopment, he unilaterally ceased the payment of displacement allowances and failed to deliver the promised flat.
• Following this, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint, resulting in the arrest of the accused on May 3, 2018.
• The bail plea was initially rejected by the magistrate on the date of arrest, stating the gravity of the offences.
• However, four days later, on May 7, 2018, the accused was granted interim liberty, which has been challenged in the present high court.

‘Cryptic, unreasoned’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Anupam K Bhattacharya submitted that the interim bail granted was “cryptic and unreasoned”, contending that such a perverse exercise of judicial discretion not only undermines the integrity of the trial but poses a palpable threat to the safety of the victim.
• He also pointed out that the petitioner, an elderly widow and a victim, had filed a specific application detailing imminent life threats.
• Bhattacharya also emphasised that the magistrate summarily turning down the objections against granting of interim bail without a reasoned discussion abdicated his statutory duty toward the victim.
• Bhattacharya further submitted that the said order is a product of procedural malfeasance, lacking the mandatory declaration that it was “written/typed by the magistrate or under his direction”.
• He alleged that the said magistrate merely initialled the order sheet instead of affixing a full signature, thereby violating the sacred mandate of the provisions of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985.

Clerical issue: Accused’s counsel

• On the contrary, representing the accused, advocate Prabir K Mitra submitted that since the interim bail was subsequently confirmed, the petitioner’s only recourse was an application for “cancellation of bail” rather than a prayer for quashing the said order.
• He further dismissed the lack of a full signature of the magistrate as a “clerical format” issue.
• He argued that the magistrate’s initial is a globally recognised mark of authentication and that the “merits of liberty” must always outweigh the “technicalities of format.”
  Mitra stated that the underlying dispute was “purely civil” and contractual, arising from a development agreement.

More from Calcutta High Court: Calcutta High Court upholds Rs 29 lakh cancer treatment claim for family of retired employee

The Calcutta High Court recently upheld the reimbursement of over Rs 29 lakh to the legal heirs of a retired government employee who was on life-saving cancer treatment, holding that the state cannot take “whimsical decisions” and technicalities such as opting for Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) cannot override the fundamental right to health under Article 21.

Justices Debangsu Basak and Ajay Kumar Gupta were hearing the plea filed by the state challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s 2019 order in favour of the legal heirs of the retired government employee, K.R. Samson, who died during the pendency of the application.