District South 24 Parganas

In the High Court at Calcutta

Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

C. A. N.

of 2013

In the matter of :
C.R.M. No.

of 2013

C.A.N. No.

of 2013

- And In the matter of:

Sandhya Mondal
Petitioner
-

Versus

The State of West Bengal and

Others
Opposite Parties
-

And

In the matter of :
An application for condonation of
delay of

days in filing application

for restoration;

- And
In the matter of :
Sandhya Mondal
Wife of Sri Sanjib Mondal, residing
at

Village

Begumpur,

Police

Station -Baruipur, District- South

24 Parganas;
Applicant
-Versus 1.

The State of West Bengal;

2.

Sri Rabin Hazra, Son of Ajit

Hazra;
3.
Sri Anil Hazra, Son of Late
Nagendra Nath Hazra,
No. 2 and 3 are both residing at
Village - Begumpur, Police Station Baruipur,

District

South

24

Parganas;
Respondents

To,

The Honble Arun Mishra, Chief Justice and His Honble Companion
Justices of the said Honble Court

The humble petition of the petitioner named

above and most respectfully

Sheweth
1.

Your

Petitioner

most

Applicant/Petitioner

on

respectfully
February

2,

states
2013

that

had lodged

the
a

complaint at Baruipur Police Station against Respondent No.s 2

and 3 under Section 376 (2) which has been registered as
Baruipur Police Station Case No. 115 of 2013.

2.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that on 03.02.2013 the

Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 were arrested by the Baruipur Police
authority and on 04.02.2013 both of them were produced before
the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Baruipur and the said Learned Court was pleased to remand the
Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 to jail custody. It is pertinent to
mention in this regard that the application for bail as filed by the

Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 was rejected by the said Learned

Court on 04.02.2013.

3.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that on the same day, the
that is on 04.02.2013 the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 moved the
Learned Sessions Judge at Alipore with a bail application under
section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with
Baruipur Police Station Case No. 115 of 2013 dated 02.02.2013,
which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1364 of
2013 wherein Learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, notified the
Learned Public Prosecutor and called for Case Diary of the
proceedings arising out of Baruipur Police Station Case No. 115
of 2013 dated 02.02.2013 and fixed 18.02.2013 as the next date
of hearing.

4.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that on 18.02.2013 when

the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1364 of 2013 was taken up
for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.
2 and 3 herein to move the said application for bail and as a
result the said application for bail being Criminal Miscellaneous
Case No. 1364 of 2013 was rejected by the Learned Sessions
Judge at Alipore.

5.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that, later it was revealed

that, surprisingly, and significantly, on 05.02.2013, the Opposite
Parties No. 2 and 3, had yet again filed another application before
the same Learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, under section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for bail in connection
with the same proceeding that is Baruipur Police Station Case
No. 115 of 2013 dated 02.02.2013 and the same was registered as
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1425 of 2013. It is pertinent to
mention in this regard that, upon suppressing the filing of
previous application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure being Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1364 of 2013,
it was specifically affirmed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 in
the

said

subsequent

bail

application

being

Criminal

Miscellaneous Case No. 1425 of 2013 that no previous application

for bail in connection with the same proceeding was pending.

6.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that vide order dated

05.02.2013,

the

Learned

Sessions

Judge

at

Alipore

fixed

12.02.2013 as next date of hearing and called for the Case Diary
of the proceedings arising out of Baruipur Police Station Case No.
115 of 2013 dated 02.02.2013. On 12.02.2013, the Learned

Sessions Judge at Alipore was pleased to grant bail to the

Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
1425 of 2013.

7.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that being aggrieved by

and dissatisfied with such Order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the
Learned Sessions Judge at Alipore in Criminal Miscellaneous
Case No. 1425 of 2013, the applicant filed this present
application

for

cancellation

of

bail

of

Opposite

Parties/Respondents no. 2 and 3 before this Honble Court being

C.R.M. No.

of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the said

application).

8.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that on 2013 the said

application for cancellation of bail came up for hearing before the
Division Bench of this Honble Court whereby upon admitting the
application the Division Bench of this Honble Court comprising
Honble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and Honble Justice Subal
Baidya were pleased to direct Your Petitioner to serve a copy of
the said application to the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3.

9.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that accordingly Your

Petitioner duly served the copy of the said application to the

Opposite Party No. 2 and 3 by speed post with Acknowledgement

Due.

10.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that whenever the instant

matter was called up by the Honble Division Bench, on every
occasion Your Petitioner was duly present and as the Opposite
Party No. 2 and 3 did not appear, on . The Honble Division
Bench directed Your Petitioner to serve another notice to the
Opposite Parties/Respondents No. 2 and 3. Accordingly on .
Your Petitioner send a notice to the Opposite Party No. 2 and 3
informing them to present on next occasion of hearing of the
instant application.

11.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that on June 2013, the

instant case was taken up for hearing by the Division Bench
comprising Honble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and Honble
Justice Subal Baidya, however unfortunately, the Learned Lawyer
representing the Petitioner, Mr. Shuvanil Chakraborty, was not
able to remain present before the said Honble Court since he was
engaged

in

another

Court

Room

in

another

matter

and

consequentially since there was no other representation on behalf

of the Petitioner for this instant case on that time of hearing of
the aforesaid Application for Cancellation of Bail.

12.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that it was later known to

the Petitioner that the Honble Division Bench was pleased to
dismiss the said Application for Cancellation of Bail for default
since there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner on
the said day that is on .2013.

13.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that upon coming to know

about such dismissal, immediately the Learned Advocate-onRecord of the Petitioner contacted the younger brother of the
Petitioner Sanjib, over telephone since the Petitioner does not
have any contact number of her own.

14.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that the younger brother

of the Petitioner informed the Learned Advocate-on-Record of
Your Petitioner that the Petitioner is out of the town then and as
soon as she comes back, she will contact the Learned Advocateon-Record.

15.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that the Petitioner

immediately after coming back to her home contacted the
Learned Advocate-on-Record on .

16.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that the Learned

Advocate-on-Record asked the Petitioner to come before this
Honble Court for affirming the petition.

17.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that accordingly the

Petitioner on

September, 2013 affirmed the affidavit in the

application for restoration.

18.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that the application for

Cancellation of Bail has been dismissed on .. 2013 and the
restoration application has been filed on ..September, 2013 and
there is a delay of

19.

days in filing this restoration application.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that the reason for nonfiling of the restoration within specified time i.e. within 30 days is
beyond the control of the Petitioner.

20.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that unless the delay of

.. days in filing the application for restoration, which is beyond
the control of Your Petitioner, is condoned Your Petitioner will
suffer irreparable loss, prejudice and injury.

10

21.

Your Petitioner most respectfully states that Your Petitioner

respectfully submits that this application is made bona fide and
for the end of justice.

In the above facts and circumstances,

Your Petitioner most respectfully and
humbly prays that Your Lordships would
graciously be pleased to condone the
delay of days in filing the application
for restoration being C.AN. No.

of 2013

and pass such order/orders as the Your

Lordships may deem fit and proper for
the ends of justice.

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever
pray.

11

Affidavit
I, Smt. Sandhya Mondal, wife of Sri Sanjib Mondal, aged about years, by faith Hindu, by occupation Housewife, residing at Village
-Begumpur, Police Staion - Baruipur, District- South 24 Parganas, do
hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows :
1.

That I am the Petitioner of this instant application and am well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case and as
such am competent to affirm this affidavit.

2.

That the statements made in paragraphs nos.

are

true to knowledge of the Petitioner and the statement made in

paragraph nos.

are true according to the information

being derived from the Learned Advocate-on-Record of the

Petitioner and rests are my humble submissions before this
Honble Court.

Prepared in my office:

Deponent is known to me

Advocate

Clerk to : Mr.

Solemnly affirm before me on

this the
day of September, 2013

Advocate

12

Commissioner
District South 24 Parganas
In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
C.R.M. No.

of 2013

C.A.N. No.

of 2013

In the matter of:

An application for Restoration;
-AndIn the matter of:
Sandhya Mondal
Applicant/Petitioner
Versus State of West Bengal and Others

Respondents/Opposite Parties

Petition

13

Mr. Shuvanil Chakraborty, Advocate

Bar Association Room No. 16
High Court, Calcutta