Facts
The Petitioner Bank challenged an order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the CJM, Paschim Medinipur, granting interim bail to Respondent No. 2 (Moumita Addya Kar) in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 177/2023.
Source reference: p. 3-5The accused, a Customer Relationship Officer, allegedly siphoned off funds by processing fraudulent loans using customers' KYC documents, creating fake accounts, and routing money through a fictitious entity, "Amrita Financial Services Pvt. Ltd."
Source reference: p. 3-5The fraud was initially detected involving Rs. 34.5 lakhs, but later charge-sheeted totals exceeded Rs. 56 lakhs.
Source reference: p. 3, 6The Petitioner’s initial application for cancellation of bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 19.12.2023.
Source reference: p. 6A charge-sheet was subsequently filed on 31.08.2024 under Sections 419, 420, 406, 409, 34, 467, 468, 470, and 471 of the IPC.
Source reference: p. 6, 29Issues
1. Whether an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.PC is maintainable before the High Court after a similar prayer was rejected by the Sessions Court.
Source reference: p. 302. Whether the interim bail granted to the accused should be cancelled based on the gravity of the economic offence and the alleged illegality/perversity of the original bail order.
Source reference: p. 30-31Law Applied
Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Court to cancel bail.
Source reference: p. 11, 30The principle that a prior rejection by a Sessions Court does not bar a subsequent application to the High Court as established in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala (2025) and Rameshbhai Lallubhai Luni v. Devraj Bhalabhai (1987).
Source reference: p. 10-15The Court's power to intervene if a bail order is perverse or ignores material evidence as cited in Puran v. Rambilas (2001) and Ajwar v. Waseem (2024).
Source reference: p. 17, 24The principles from Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) and Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI (2025), emphasizing that the primary object of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial and that the presumption of innocence remains until conviction.
Source reference: p. 32Reasoning
The Court first affirmed maintainability, noting that the High Court’s concurrent jurisdiction and inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC allow it to hear bail cancellation petitions despite a Sessions Court’s refusal.
Source reference: p. 30-31The Court observed that approximately two years and six months had passed since the grant of interim bail and emphasized that a charge-sheet had already been submitted.
Source reference: p. 31, 32The Court reasoned that since the case relies heavily on documentary evidence already collected and there were no allegations of the accused flouting bail conditions or tampering with witnesses post-release, interfering with the order belatedly would serve no penal or procedural purpose.
Source reference: p. 32-33Holding
The Court held that although the original bail order might have been assessed for propriety, the change in circumstances—specifically the completion of the investigation and the long passage of time without reported misconduct—rendered custodial detention unnecessary.
The application for cancellation of bail was dismissed, upholding the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
Source reference: p. 32-33Original Court PDF
UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANKvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in