Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kalam Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 July, 2013
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Subal Baidya, Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subal Baidya CRM No.10201 of 2013 Kalam Mondal v.
The State of West Bengal
Mr. Navanil De ....for the petitioner
Mr. Manjit Singh,PP
Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta .. for the State
Heard on:July 19, 2013
Order on: July 19, 2013
Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J: The petitioner accused of offences under ss.448/372(2)(g) IPC and in custody from March 28, 2013 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC. The bail prayer was rejected by this court on June 14, 2013 in CRM No.8386 of 2013 (p.6).
The order dated June 14, 2013 is quoted below:-
"The petitioner accused of offences under ss.448/376(2)(g) IPC and in custody from March 28, 2013 is seeking bail under s.439 CrPC. We have heard advocates for the petitioner and the State and have perused the case diary produced before us. The girl's s.164 statement has been recorded. It appears that she was 18. The statement fully supports the prosecution case against the petitioner. Previously the girl alleged commission of an offence committed by the petitioner under s.376. In the s.164 statement she has said that that act resulted in the birth of a female child. In connection with the previous case the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail. The girl's allegation is that after bail the petitioner committed the offences for which the present case was started. We do not think this is a fit case for bail at this stage.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. Certified xerox."
Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The FIR of the first case was registered on December 28,2011. It was a case under 2 s.376/417 IPC. Considering the consensual aspect, this court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail on March 7, 2012. Since the petitioner got bail, the girl became wiser and made allegation of gang rape so as to keep the petitioner behind the bars. The allegation being absolutely false the petitioner should be granted bail.
In her s.164 statement the girl stated that she was 18. This means that in 2011 she was a minor. Hence we are unable to see how advocate's submission that she was a consenting party was relevant in the previous case.
In the face of the s.164 statement clearly stating that the petitioner rapped the girl after anticipatory bail granted by this court, we are unable to see how we can express an opinion that the allegations are false. We have been informed that the charge-sheet has been submitted. In our opinion, this is case for custodial trial of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the first incident resulted in the birth of a female child. Bail to the petitioner is likely to affect the trial of the case.
For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM. We order that the court below shall take all possible steps for expeditious commencement and conclusion of the trial. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.)
kc (Subal Baidya,J.)