-
by Admin
23 December 2025 4:10 PM
“It would be a travesty of justice if the accused who engineered the act is out on anticipatory bail, while others suffer custody” – Calcutta HC Slams Sessions Judge’s Bail Order in Murder Case
In a strongly worded judgment Calcutta High Court cancelled the bail granted to a West Bengal Civil Service (WBCS) officer accused of masterminding the abduction and murder of a man in broad daylight. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court and the consequential bail by the ACJM were passed in complete ignorance of the gravity of the offence and the role of the accused, and thus suffered from "perversity and lack of judicial application."
The Court set aside the impugned orders dated 26.11.2025 (Sessions Court) and 29.11.2025 (ACJM) and directed the accused, Prasanta Barman, to surrender before the ACJM, Bidhannagar, within 72 hours. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the Oath Commissioner for affirming a materially defective affidavit filed by the State.
Bail Granted Without Considering Evidence or Offence – “Accused Misused Official Position to Derail Investigation”
The case arose from a horrific incident on October 28, 2025, where Swapan Kamila was allegedly abducted from his jewellery shop by the accused and others, using an official vehicle with a blue beacon. Days later, Swapan’s dead body was recovered from an abandoned location in Jatragachi, with post-mortem revealing serious injuries consistent with torture and assault.
The High Court observed:
“The accused/opposite party organized his associates, used his official position for commission of the offence and tried to derail the investigation by manufacturing false alibis.”
Justice Ghosh found that both ocular and electronic evidence, including eyewitness accounts, CCTV footage, and the post-mortem report, clearly pointed to the accused not only being present at the scene but masterminding the entire sequence of abduction, torture, and murder.
“It is the accused/opposite party who engineered the entire series of events and the others were there to implement his decision.”
Sessions Judge Cited Accused's Official Status As Basis for Bail – “A Perversion of Bail Jurisprudence”
The Court expressed serious displeasure at the manner in which the Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail, noting that:
“While the learned Sessions Court acknowledged the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious... it allowed anticipatory bail on the ground that the accused is a member of the West Bengal Civil Service.”
The Court stressed that official status of the accused cannot override the seriousness of the offence:
“It would be a travesty of justice if the persons who aided him are suffering custody and the accused who engineered the act would be enjoying anticipatory bail… only on the ground that he happens to be a WBCS officer.”
The ACJM, in turn, mechanically followed the Sessions Judge's order, granting regular bail without independent reasoning when the accused surrendered:
“The consequential order passed by the learned ACJM lacks any application of mind as it followed the order of anticipatory bail without assigning any independent reasons.”
Accused’s Objection to Court’s Jurisdiction Rejected – “Court Exercising Power Under Section 439 CrPC Has Authority”
An interesting issue was raised by the defence regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court Bench hearing the State’s plea. It was argued that the present Court was not authorized to hear matters under Sections 438 CrPC or 482 BNSS due to roster allocation by the Chief Justice (Master of Roster).
Rejecting this objection, the Court clarified: “An anticipatory bail ends with either the accused being arrested by the investigating officer or being granted regular bail upon surrender… Therefore, it is the Court exercising powers under Section 439 CrPC that will have the authority to decide cancellation of bail.”
Relying on Sushila Aggarwal and Bharatbhai Bharwad, the Court drew a crucial distinction between cancellation of bail and review of a bail order passed in arbitrary exercise of discretion. The latter, the Court noted, requires reconsideration of the original grant of bail on merits, especially where it is evident that vital facts and evidence were ignored.
“The orders passed… lack comprehensive reason and ignore relevant materials while passing the impugned orders rendering the same to be perverse and liable to be set aside.”
Affidavit Filed by State Found Defective – Cost Imposed on Oath Commissioner
During the hearing, it came to light that the State’s affidavit-in-support of the cancellation plea had a blank paragraph but was nevertheless affirmed by the Oath Commissioner. Calling this a serious lapse, the Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000:
“There was gross negligence on the part of the Office of the Commissioner of Affidavit… the affidavit was kept blank… A cost of Rs.10,000 is imposed… The Registrar General is directed to recover such amount.”
Court Emphasizes Principles Governing Bail in Heinous Offences
Justice Ghosh reiterated that in serious offences such as murder, courts must be cautious and consider critical factors including:
Nature and gravity of accusation
Danger of justice being thwarted
Character and position of the accused
Apprehension of influencing witnesses
Severity of punishment upon conviction
Prima facie evidence of guilt
“The aforesaid considerations did not weigh at all with the learned Sessions Judge while granting the anticipatory bail.”
The High Court’s judgment in The State of West Bengal v. Prasanta Barman is a stern reminder that judicial discretion in bail matters must not be exercised casually, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. Official status of an accused cannot become a shield against custodial investigation, particularly when strong prima facie evidence points to their role as the principal offender.
This ruling also underscores the High Court's commitment to ensuring judicial accountability at all levels—be it in the mechanical grant of bail, dereliction by oath officers, or misuse of jurisdictional objections to stall scrutiny.
“The conduct of the accused reflects that he was overconfident of his official position, took law in his own hands, and exposed himself in a manner which would strike at the core of public order.”
Date of Decision: 22 December 2025
