Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re: Subha Singh @ Subho Singh on 18 July, 2017
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 25 18.07.2017
sm Allowed CRM No.6552 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.07.2017 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.439 of 2017 dated 04.05.2017 under sections 363/343/368/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 adding section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 And In re: Subha Singh @ Subho Singh .. Petitioner(In Jail) Ms.Jeenia Rudra... for the petitioner Mr.Pradipta Ganguly Ms.Sukanya Bhattacharya ... for the State.
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The petitioner is in custody for 72 days. It is true that the victim-girl is minor, but when we read her statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. together with the injury report, we find that the same are not matching.
It is an admitted position that both labia majora and labia minora are normal. There was no injury on the vaginal one. There was also no injury in perineum.
Having regard to above and considering the petitioner's length of detention in custody and when no case is made out from the side of the State that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed. 2
Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court (under POCSO Act) at Jalpaiguri.
Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) 33 18.07.2017 sm Rejected CRM No.6585 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.07.2017 in connection with Sankrail Police Station Case No.1041 of 2016 dated 18.12.2016 under sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And In Re:- Ayub Ali Molla .... Petitioner (In jail) Mr.Arnab Saha ... for the petitioner Md.Anwar Hossain Ms.Ratna Ghosh ... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
3This is a case of dacoity committed in a factory. The petitioner has been identified in TI Parade by the victim. Pursuant to his statement and on being led by him, the stolen articles were recovered.
It is true that he is in custody for about 6 months and the case has not yet been committed.
Now, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation and the materials collected during investigation and the gravity of the offence, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.
We direct the learned Magistrate before whom the matter is pending to immediately committee the case to the Court of Sessions in accordance with law.
The office is directed to communicate this order to the court below.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.) 4