IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRA (DB) 51 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2025 Balai Charan Maity & Anr. Vs. The National Investigation Agency Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee & The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ayan Poddar, Adv. Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Agnish Basu, Adv. Mr. Vipul Vedant, Adv. For the NIA : Mr. Arun Kumar Maity (Mohanty), Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv. Mr. D. Tandon, Adv. For Orders On: 24.03.2025 Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :- 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Cum Judge Special Court, Calcutta in NIA Case No. 08 of 2023 in connection with RC- 2 16/2023/NIA/DLI dated 04.06.2023. By the said order dated 05.02.2025 the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Cum Judge Special Court, Calcutta cancelled the bail granted to the present petitioners by this Bench on 29.01.2025 in connection with CRA (DB) 121 of 2024 on the grounds that the accused violated the conditions of bail order passed by the High Court at Calcutta since the accused persons; Manabrata Jana and Balai Charan Maity were not residing within the jurisdiction of New Town Police Station, Rajarhat in terms of conditions of Bail granted to them by order dated 29.01.2025. The Learned Trial Judge has further held that the local addresses of the accused, as directed in the said bail order, were not furnished to the I.O. of the case till 05.02.2025. Moreover, the accused failed to disclose the two mobile numbers each to the concerned I.O. although 5 days had passed after their release on bail. Therefore, as the petitioners failed to comply with the conditions of bail order dated 29.01.2025 in CRA (DB) of 121 of 2024 and such violations, according to the Learned Trial Court, was deliberate, the Learned Chief Judge cancelled the bail of the accused persons namely, Manabrata Jana and Balai Charan Maity and they were taken into custody and remanded to correctional home. 2. The learned senior counsel for the appellants/petitioners, Mr. Banerjee has submitted that there was a misunderstanding since the petitioners mistakenly started residing within the jurisdiction of Rajarhat Police Station with the impression that the said area was under the New Town Police Station. The fact that the residences in which the petitioners were residing, are actually within the jurisdiction of Rajarhat Police Station 3 and not within the New Town Police Station became known to the appellants subsequently. Furthermore, as the petitioners disclosed their phone numbers before the Learned Trial Court on 01.02.2025 which has been reflected in the order sheet dated 01.02.2025 and further as the said copy was sent to the concerned I.O. for his information from the end of the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Cum Judge Special Court, Calcutta, the petitioners were under the impression that the condition for informing the I.O. about their phone numbers has been duly complied with. 3. Mr. Banerjee has further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to flout the orders of the Hon’ble Court since they would gain nothing by violating such order, particularly when they got the bail order from this court on 29.01.2025 after a long period of incarceration and as such the order dated 05.02.2025 has been passed by the Learned Trial Judge without taking into consideration that there was no intentional laches on the part of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners should be enlarged on bail as they did not flout the order of the court with any oblique motive or intention. 5. The learned senior counsel Mr. Maity, appearing for the NIA has vehemently objected to the prayer of bail. According to him, there are sufficient materials showing that the petitioners have deliberately flouted the conditions of the bail order dated 29.01.2025. 4 6. The learned counsel of the NIA has further stated that the accused Balai Charan Maity was one of the conspirators in hatching the criminal conspiracy for making crude bombs with the intention to use them against the civilians for the purpose of gaining political mileage. The other accused Manabrata Jana was also a co-conspirator and he was actively involved with the accused Raj Kumar Manna, since deceased, in making of crude bombs and storing in the house of Raj Kumar Manna. 7. Mr. Maity has also submitted that the petitioners did not submit their phone numbers to the concerned I.O. deliberately and they did not reside within the jurisdiction which was stipulated in the bail conditions. The petitioners are very much influential having deep political connection and as such their prayer for bail should be rejected. 8. We have considered the materials on record and found that by our order dated 29.01.2025 in CRA (DB) 121 of 2024 the appellants were directed to be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) The petitioners shall remain within the jurisdiction of New Town Police Station, Rajarhat, Kolkata, excepting for the purpose of attending court proceedings, (ii) The petitioners shall meet the Bench clerk of the Chief Judge City Sessions Court, Calcutta during office hours twice in a week until further order, and the concerned Bench clerk will record the attendance of each of 5 the petitioners separately with endorsement and official seal, in the attendance registers to be produced by the petitioners, (iii) The petitioners shall furnish their local addresses where they will reside presently to the I.O. of this case as well as to the Learned Trial Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to intimidate, influence or tamper with evidence and shall attend the court on each date of hearing. (v) The petitioners are further directed that they shall not reside in the same residential address during the time these bail conditions remain operative. (vi) The NIA authority is at liberty to keep a vigil upon the petitioners and monitor the phone calls of the petitioners, (vii) Each petitioner shall be entitled to use only two mobile phone numbers after disclosing the said phone numbers to the concerned I.O. 9. The allegations that the petitioners are influential persons and they had actively participated in the commission of the alleged offences have been elaborately discussed in our order dated 29.01.2025. The issue is different in this appeal. Be that as it may, it appears from the record that the areas under New Town Police Station and Rajarhat Police station are adjacent to each other. Therefore, there may be a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioners, not being residents of Kolkata, in this regard in identifying the 6 areas. It is also found that the petitioners had gone to the learned court of the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Cum Judge Special Court, Calcutta for compliance of the court’s order and also for meeting the Bench Clerk during official hours on the relevant dates. Moreover, the record shows that the order dated 01.02.2025 of the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Cum Judge Special Court, Calcutta containing the phone numbers of the appellants was sent to the concerned I.O. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of a bonafide mistake on the part of the learned counsel of the petitioners or the petitioners themselves in understanding that their phone numbers should have been communicated to the concerned I.O. separately. Notwithstanding the fact that the order dated 01.02.2025 of the Learned Trial Court containing the phone numbers of the appellants were already sent to the concerned I.O. However, it is quite strange that within 5 days of their release, the bail granted to the petitioners by the Hon’ble Court was hurriedly cancelled without giving the petitioners sufficient opportunity to deal with the matters or to remedy the bonafide mistakes committed by them. It appears that there may have been certain “mistakes of facts” on the part of the petitioners in identifying the area in which they should have resided, as per order of the court and also in communicating the phone numbers and addresses to the I.O separately. Considering all the aspects of the matter we are inclined to allow the prayer for bail on the self-same conditions as we stipulated in our order dated 29.01.2025, only with the rider that before their release on bail, the proposed addresses and phone numbers of the petitioners should be communicated to the Learned Trial 7 Judge and the I.O as required in the said conditions of bail. The prayer for bail is, thus, allowed. However, the petitioners are to furnish fresh bail bonds in accordance with law. 10. CRA (DB) 51 of 2025 with CRAN 1 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of. 11. Urgent photostat certified copies of this Order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities. I Agree. (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)