02.07.2025 SL No.25 Sg/sm (Allowed) C.R.M. (M) 680 of 2025 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 filed on 10.06.2025 in connection with Raiganj P.S. Case No. 40 of 2018 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 498A/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of: Pradip Saha & Anr. ….Petitioners Mr. Sabayasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi …for the petitioners Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Kunal Ganguly …for the State 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19th May, 2025 and 22nd May, 2025 whereby the bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II In- Charge, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. 2. In the backdrop the facts in brief are that FIR No.40/18 dated 22.06.2018 under Sections 498A/323/325/307/34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioners and other accused persons. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the court on 30th November, 2018. 3. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner no.2 was admitted to anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 16th November, 2018 in C.R.M. 8714 of 2018. The application for cancellation bearing C.R.M. 1155 of 2019 was also disposed of 2 by this court vide order dated 22nd November, 2019 and certain additional conditions were imposed. 4. The plea of the prosecution is that after filing of the charge-sheet, the petitioners had been regularly absenting themselves and this led to the issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused persons vide order dated 13th May, 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that apparently the petitioners have misused the bail granted to them and did not allow the proceedings to happen before the learned trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the accused persons has stated that petitioner no.1 was admitted to regular bail and the petitioner no.2 was admitted to anticipatory bail by the Division Bench of this Court after taking into account entire facts and circumstances. Learned counsel submits that on some of the dates the accused persons did not appear which led to the issuance of warrant of arrest and the learned trial court ignoring the fact that the petitioners remained on regular bail for a long period of time took them into custody and rejected the bail application. 7. The court has considered the submissions. It is not disputed that petitioner no.1 was admitted to regular bail and the petitioner no.2 was admitted to anticipatory bail by the Division Bench of this Court. The application for cancellation of bail was also rejected. Some of the order-sheets placed on record, indicates that the petitioners did not appear before the learned trial court which led to the issuance of warrant of arrest. 3 However, the learned trial court rejected the bail application of the petitioners taking into account the gravity of the alleged offence. There is no mention about specific violation of cancellation of bail order or any specific circumstances on the basis of which petitioners could not have been allowed to be remained on bail. The exercise of jurisdiction of bail is an important and sensitive jurisdiction which has to be exercised, taking into account the liberty of an individual. The liberty of an individual can be curtailed only in exceptional circumstances. The fact that the petitioners defaulted in appearing before the learned trial court could have been handled by imposing stringent condition. 8. The court considers that the rejection of the bail application vide order dated 19th May, 2025 and 22nd May, 2025 cannot be sustained as the same is bereft of any reason. The court should have taken into account that the petitioners were granted on bail on merits by the learned trial court and this court respectively. 9. Thus, taking into account, the facts and circumstances, the petitioner are admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom should be local, subject to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-II In-Charge, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, and subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear regularly before the learned trial court. In case there is a difficulty in the personal appearance, the 4 petitioners shall take prior exemption from the learned trial court. 10. The application for bail is, thus, allowed. 11. Needless to say, the condition as imposed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2019 in C.R.M. 1155 of 2019 shall remain same. The other conditions imposed by the learned trial court at the time of admitting petitioner no.1 on bail shall also remain the same. 12. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)