Chandra Sekhar Jaiswal v. Assistant Director, E.D, Govt. Of India

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta C.R.R. 2816 of 2025 Chandra Sekhar Jaiswal -vsAssistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Prahladka Ms. Reshmi Khatun For the ED : Mr. Arijit Chakraborty : Mr. Debsoumya Basak Heard on : 08.08.2025 Judgment on : 08.08.2025 Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application challenging an order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (CBI) No.1, Calcutta in M.L. Case No. 3 of 2018, thereby cancelling bail granted to the petitioner on 13.09.2023 and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest

against him.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner was an accused in the predicate offence case and was in custody there. During custody, he was shown arrested in respect of the present case on 10.07.2021. After prolonged custody, on 13.09.2023 the petitioner was granted bail. He attended the trial Court regularly till 24.04.2025. Although the case was actually fixed on 17.06.2025, the petitioner had an idea that the next date was 24.06.2025. That is why his learned counsel could not take steps on the particular day i.e., on 17.06.2025. It is also pointed out that even on 18.06.2025, the petitioner gave an attendance before the Sheristadar of the CBI Court as was directed earlier.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate denies the allegations and opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner's learned counsel was present there and the witness was made to wait till 3:40 PM on 17.06.2025. Afterwards, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that learned counsel was not having adequate instructions. It appears that the petitioner had been in custody for more than five years in connection with the present case and after getting bail, he had regularly attended the learned Trial Court. It was only on one occasion that his learned counsel could not take steps for

want of instructions due to some purported miscommunication/misunderstanding.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of cancellation of bail of the petitioner and issuing warrant of arrest and direct the petitioner to attend the learned trial Court on and from the next date of hearing. He shall be permitted to remain on the same bail.

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.) ssi