Kolkata: Calcutta High Court on Friday cancelled the bail of a developer accused of cheating and threatening an elderly widow whose flat he was redeveloping, observing that the Sealdah court, while granting bail, had prioritised the liberty of the accused over the victim’s safety.Justice Uday Kumar also directed the Kolkata police commissioner to provide protection to the woman and her family.The victim, a lawful tenant of 34C, Gopal Chandra Chatterjee Road, had entered into a tripartite development agreement in 2011 with the proprietor of Sree Krishna Construction.Under the agreement and an undertaking given by the accused on Nov 26, 2014, the developer was to shift the victim to a temporary accommodation, bear the monthly rent and reinstate her in a self-contained flat measuring 200 sq ft within 24 months. However, after taking possession of her residence for redevelopment, he stopped paying the allowance and failed to deliver the flat. The victim filed a complaint at Cossipore PS in 2017.The accused was arrested on May 3, 2018. Four days later, the additional district judicial magistrate in Sealdah granted bail citing the “period of detention and absence of any mention of threat in the remand report”.Justice Kumar said the reasoning reflected a “superficial assessment of the gravity of the matter”, observing that in cases of white-collar crime and criminal breach of trust, the protection of the victim and the integrity of evidence are paramount.The magistrate also failed to address the victim’s complaints of threats made on May 4, 2018 — before the grant of bail — and the subsequent death threats reported on May 21 and 22.“The liberty of an accused, while precious, cannot be protected by an order that is ‘born in sin’, that is, an order passed in defiance of the HC’s administrative and judicial discipline,” the judge held.He also criticised the judicial officer for not following the Criminal Rules and Orders while granting bail through an order that was unsigned or only partially initialled. “A ‘mere initial’ on a bail order in a case involving substantial fraud… undermines the solemnity of judicial proceedings,” the court observed.The Registrar (judicial services) was directed to seek an explanation from the judicial officer and place the order in the officer’s Annual Confidential Report dossier along with a formal warning.
