21.08.2026 Serial no. 5 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (SB) 120 of 2024 In re : An Application u/s 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. -And- In the matter of : Union of India & Ors. … Petitioner(s) Ms. Amrita Pandey Mr. S. Auddya … for the Union of India Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr Adv. Mr. Soumya Nag … for the O.P. The petitioner/applicant representing the Railway Authorities submits that at the relevant point of time the orders dated 03.07.2024 and 19.07.2024 were challenged. Learned advocate further submits that without any audience being given to the Railway Authorities, the opposite party/accused was granted bail. There were materials at the relevant point of time which should have been considered by the learned court and ignorance of the same caused serious prejudice to the investigating agency and to the subsequent prosecution which was to be conducted. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the o.p./accused submits that in the order dated 03.07.2024, the learned Magistrate categorically stated relating to the absence of the learned Public Prosecutor for about ten months as also expressed dissatisfaction relating to the authorities not being 2 represented in court inspite of the matter being fixed, thereafter, proceeded to grant bail. However, an application for Cancellation of Bail was heard on 19th July, 2024 along with the other applications. Learned court reiterated its contention and emphasized that there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner while on bail has misused the liberty as well as the fact of the Railway Authorities being not represented in different matters for a considerable period of time and proceeded to affirm the earlier order of bail granted with additional conditions being imposed. Having considered the same, I am of the view that the decision which was taken by the learned Magistrate was a conscious decision and a speaking order. More than two years have passed since such order was passed and now circumstances have totally changed. There are nothing on record to suggest that custodial detention of the present petitioner is at all required. Having considered the overall circumstances including the period of time which has lapsed, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in respect of the application preferred for ‘Cancellation of Bail’. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (SB) 120 of 2024 is dismissed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3