Abdul Mazid v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

CRR/25/2023 Abdul Mazid ...Petitioner Vs.

The State ... Respondent Mr. Ananda Halder ... for the Petitioner Ms. A.S. Zinu ...for the Respondent October 18, 2023 [M.A.Mobin] Item No.6 The present petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Division Bench of this Court vide an order dated September 29, 2023 in CRM(DB) 14 of 2023 directing the present petitioner to furnish bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with two registered sureties of the equal amount, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act at Port Blair. By virtue of the said order the petitioner submits the bail bond of Rs.30,000/- by two sureties i.e. total Rs.60,000/-. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the learned CJM, Port Blair has directed the petitioner to furnish bail bond of Rs.30,000/- by each sureties. On such direction the bail bond of Rs.

30,000/- by two sureties was furnished. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is erroneous. So, necessary order may be passed. Heard the learned Advocate for the State.

It appears that the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the bail bond amount of Rs.30,000/- and also directed that it should be furnished by two registered sureties of equal amount. Thus in this case it is clarified that the bail bond amount is only required to be submitted by two registered sureties of total amount of Rs.30,000/- not Rs.60,000/-.

As the petitioner has already complied with the order, however wrongly, the same cannot be ordered to be returned. As such, the instant Criminal Revision application appears to me infructuous and the same is disposed of.

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)