Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re:- Sathee Kirtaniya @ Sathi ... on 10 November, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 10.11.2016
sm CRAN 158 of 2016 With CRA 327 of 2015 In the matter:- Bipul Mandal. ... Appellant. Mr.Arun Kumar Maity, ld.APP Mr.Anjan Dutta . .. for the appellant.
In spite of repeated calls, none appears in support of this application, when the matter is taken up for hearing, although the learned advocate for the State is very much present in court.
Let the hearing of this case be stand adjourned for this day.
(B/o.Ashim Kumar Roy & Sankar Acharyya, JJ.) 41 10.11.2016 sm Rejected CRM No.9579 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.11.2016 in connection with Duttapukur Police Station Case No.632 of 2016 dated 17.08.2016 under sections 363/366A/372/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code..
And In Re:- Sathee Kirtaniya @ Sathi Kirtaniya @ Bibi & Anr.
..... Petitioners.
2Mr.Kajal Mukherjee Mr.Bikash Chakraborty ... for the petitioners Mr.Angshuman Chakraborty ... for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.
The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that not only his clients are the women and are in custody for about 86 days, but the offence punishable under section 366A IPC attracted against only the girl, who is above 35 years.
He further submits that so far as the offence punishable under section 376 IPC is concerned that cannot be attracted against these petitioners and the FIR was lodged after eight (8) months.
In reply, the learned advocate for the State first points out that only after recovery of the girl, the story has been surfaced and that is the reason for delay in lodging the FIR. He then submits that the victim is aged about 18 years and when she was kidnapped, she was below 18 years. Therefore, the offence punishable under section 366A IPC is very much attracted. He further submits that the accuseds are the persons, who not only involved in procuring the minor girls, but also responsible for engaging them in prostitution.
We have gone through the case diary.
3Having regard to the nature of allegation and the materials collected in support of them, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
The office is directed to immediately communicate this order to the court below for future reference.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Sankar Acharyya, J.)