Judgment · High Court

In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with POCSO No.38 of 2023 arising out of Sutahata Police Station Case No.401 of 2023 dated the 8th Day of November, 2023 under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and which culminated in Charge Sheet vide Charge Sheet No. 1 of 2024 dated the 5th Day of January, 2024 (erroneously mentioned as the 5th Day of April, 2024 in the first page of the charge sheet) under Sections 376AB/376(2)(n)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 thereby rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for bail. -And- In the matter of : Prabir Singha … Petitioner Mr. Kaustav Bagchi, Mr. Debayan Ghosh, Ms.

Priti Kar Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Ms. Sana Naaz …for the petitioner …for the de facto complainant … …for the State Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are glaring contradictions in the evidence of the victim vis-(cid:224)-vis the evidence of mother of the victim with regard to the time of occurrence as well as the manner of offence. The place of occurrence is also disputed so far as the evidence of prosecution witnesses are concerned. Thus such contradictions clearly points 2 towards falsity in the prosecution case. The petitioner is in custody for 546 days. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim in her statement as well as in her evidence before the Court has categorically stated of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence of sexual assault and rape.

The consequences of contradictions as indicated are the matter to be dealt with by the learned trial court at the time of passing judgment. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Similar submission is advanced on behalf of the de facto complainant. Perused the Case Diary and materials on record. The victim at the time of incident was 11-years of age. From the statement of the victim as well as her deposition in Court there are implication against the petitioner of sexual assault and rape upon her. There might be certain contradictions with regard to the time and the place of occurrence. The consequence of such contradictions on the prosecution case is to be decided upon conclusion of trial. Considering the above materials and nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date. 3 Parties are directed to cooperate in trial at the time of examination of the witnesses. The application for bail being CRM(M) 198 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)