Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, holding that such bail matters and the appointment of a Special Officer are not within its jurisdiction for grant of leave as the legal issues have been settled and factual aspects do not warrant review.

Summary

The State of West Bengal filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 challenging a Calcutta High Court order that granted bail to the accused Sudhir Dey and others and appointed the Deputy Inspector General of the CBI as a Special Officer to investigate murder allegations. The Supreme Court noted that the petition did not contest the bail order, and such bail matters are ordinarily not entertained by the Court. The Special Officer had completed his inquiry and submitted a report affirming the truth of the main allegations, but the underlying criminal case had already been quashed by the High Court. Relying on its earlier judgment in a related criminal appeal and the principle that the legal questions were settled, the Court held there was no ground to grant leave. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a Special Leave Petition can be entertained by the Supreme Court in a bail matter where the High Court has granted bail and appointed a Special Officer.
Whether the appointment of a Special Officer by the High Court is reviewable by the Supreme Court under Article 136.
Whether the existence of a Special Officer's report and the quashing of the criminal case affect the grant of special leave.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 439
Constitution of Indias. 136

Subjects

Special Leave PetitionBailJudicial interferenceSpecial OfficerHigh CourtCriminal ProcedureCBI investigationMurder allegationQuashing of criminal caseJurisdiction

Judgment

253

A

STATE OF WEST BENGAL
I
v.
SUDHIR DEY AND ANR. B
December 4 1984

[P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDR.\ NATH SEN AND RANGANATH
MISRA, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 136-Criminal Special Leave Petition-
c
Judicial interference in police investigation by High Court by appointing Sptcial
Ofiicer to inquire into the allegations of an offence·Specia/ 0/ilcer already comple-
ted his inquiry-Question of /aw as to when judicial interference In lnveMigation
permissible already decided by Supreme Court in another case-Whether leave
should be granted on the same point.
D
The petitioner challenged the order of a Division Bench of I he Calcutta
High Court admitting the respondents to bail and also appointing the Deputy
lnspector General, Central Bureau, of Investigation as a Special Officer to
inquire into the allegations relating to an offence of murder.

Dismissing the petition,
E
HELD : (I) A prayer for special leave in a bail matter of this type would
notfordinarHy be entertained by the Supreme Court. Therefore, counsel for the
petitioner rightly does not seek to challenge the release on bail of the respon-
dents, [254F]

(2) In the instant case, the criininal case itself has in the meantime been
quashed by the Calcutta High Court. State ~f West Be11[fa/ & Ors. etc. v. F
Sampat Lal & OrS. [1982] 2 S.C'R. 256. the legal aspects have been indicated
and the principle to be plied to a case of this type has also been:stated. Keeping
all these aspects inview and particularly the fact that the Special Officer had
made a eport which indicates that the main fabrics of the 3llegations are true,
Court does not feel inclined to grant leave. The Special Leave Petition is
accordingly dismissed. [255E-F]

G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petition For special Leave
to Appeal (Criminal)No 1454/83

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.6.83 of the Calcutta
High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. Nil of 1983 under Sec. 439
of Oriminal Procedure Code.
ll
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 s.c.R. L

A Somnath Chatterjee, HK Puri, S. Ghosh and VK Bahl, for the
petitioner.
KG Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General, RN Poddar and
Miss Halida Khatoon, for the Union of India.
A.K. Sen, Sib Das s,merjee, Shri Naraian, for the respondent.
B
Judgment of the Court was delivered.

RANGANATH MISRA, J. This special leave application under
Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against tthe order of a !
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated June 20,1983,
c admitting the respondents to bail and making the following
•
direction:

"Undoubtedly, if the allegations of this nature are
made against the responsible officers of the West Bengal
D Police, it will tarnish the image of the entire police force.
·Under the circumstances we direct the petitioners to hand
over a copy of the petition with its annexures to the Deputy
Inspector General, Central Bureau of Investigation, 13
Lindsay Street, Calcutta, who will act as' a Special Officer
of this Court and enquire into the allegation made in this
petition and its annexures and submit a report to this Court
as to the truth of the allegation contained therein. This
report must be submitted by 27th June. 1983.

In the meantime we direct the petitioners to be
released forthwith on their executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 250 each."
F
So far as the question of release on bail of the respondents
is concerned, petitioner's counsel does not seek to challenge it.
In fact, a prayer for special leave in a bail matter of this type would
not ordinarily be entertained in this Court. Challenge, however,
is to the other part of the direction relating to enquiry by the Special
G Officer.
The Special Officer appointed in this case by the High Court
has as a fact completed the enquiry and sent his report which under
our direction has been brought here and we had the advantage of
perusing it. The Special Officer has found some of the allegations
of the respondents to be trqe,
WEST BANGAL v. SUDHIR DEY (Ranganath Misra, J.) 255

We have by a separate judgment delivered today in Criminal
No. 570/83, dealt with the enquiry relating to the death of two
teenagers by the names Tirthankar Das Sharma and Sanjib
Chatterjee. Respondent I, a retired Police Sub-Inspector was
engaged as an investigating officer by the private detective agency-
B
The Secret Eye. Respondent 2 happens to be the driver of a motor
car of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, a leading newspaper in Bengali
published from Calcutta, which had engaged the private detective
agency for the purpose of investigating into the death of the
two teenagers. One Niranjan Ghosh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police attached to the GRP, Bandel, was concerned at the initial stage
of the investigation by the police into the death of the two boys. c
On account of certain lacuna in the investigation of that case
Niranjan Ghosh had been put under suspension. At that stage.
Niranjan Ghosh and respondent I had picked up acquaintance and
respondent I had promised to help Niranjan Ghosh in preparing a
representation against his snspension. Lateran some dispute arose
between the two which led to the institution of the criminal proceed- D
ing in which bail for respondents became necessary.

The State of West Bengal filed this application for leave being
aggrieved mainly by the direction for appointment of a Special
Officer. By our judgment in the criminal, appeal reference to which
E
we have made above, tbe legal aspects have been indicated and the
principle to be appied to a case of this type has also been stated
We find that the criminal case itself has in the meantime bee~
quashed by the Calcutta High Court. Keeping all these aspects in
• view and particularly the fact that the Special Officer bed made a
report which indicates that the main fabrics of the allegations are F
true, we do not feel inclined to grant leave. This case does not
require leave to be granted as the question of law has already been
settled by us in the judgment of the. criminal appeal and the
' factual aspects do not require a review by grant of leave. The
application for special leave is accordingly dismissed.

G
.....
M.L.A, Petition dismissM,