Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application For Bail Under Section ... vs In Re.: Gandhari Halder on 20 July, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 46. 20.07.2016
.
ap C.R.M. 5669 of 2016 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.07.2016 in connection with Bidhannagar Women Police Station Case No. 12 of 2015 dated 02.11.2015 under Sections 366A/372/376(D)/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In re.: Gandhari Halder. ... Petitioner
Mr. Debajyoti Deb. ...... for the petitioner
Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld. P.P.
Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddiqui. .... for the State
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is a lady and is a mother of a 1½ year child and she is now languishing in jail with the baby in her lap. He further submits that she is no way involved with the offences punishable under Section 372/376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and although charge-sheet submitted long back but till date, the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Session and one of the co-accused is on bail.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that since one of the co-accused is still absconding, therefore, the commitment of the case to the Court of Session for trial could not have been made as yet. He further submits that merely because the petitioner is a 2 woman that cannot be a ground for considering her prayer for bail, in a case of this nature, where she happens to be the principal accused in the sense she acted as a pimp and handed over the victim girl to the other miscreants knowing fully well that she thereafter will be trafficked and sold out to the other co-accused for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution for the wrongful gain of those miscreants. He further submits that this is a case, where there is also a charge of criminal conspiracy and ample materials have been collected during investigation to show the involvement of this petitioner. He then draws our attention to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 CrPC from the case diary.
Now, going through the same, we find that the petitioner, who happens to be the aunt of the victim girl, appears to have been acted as a pimp and it is she, who handed over the victim to some of the miscreants, who trafficked her and sold her out to a brothel keeper and against her will, she was engaged in prostitution.
We further find that not only the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner are quite serious but also this is an offence, where the victim is a girl and the perpetrator of the crime, is also a woman, who happens to be her close relation.
Having regard to above, in our opinion, this is not at all a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected. 3 However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that one of the principal accused still could not be apprehended by the police, we direct the D.C.D.D., Bidhannagar Commissionerate to take immediate steps in this regard.
The learned Public Prosecutor, who is personally present in Court, assures us that he shall ensure further action in this regard.
Let this matter be listed before us one month hence.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)