In a bail application, the High Court rejected the plea of the petitioner charged with penetrative sexual assault on a minor. Finding the case grave, the court held it was not fit for bail under Section 439 CrPC.
Prayer for bail under Section 439 CrPC was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
10.01.2020 tkm/ct 28 sl no. 152
C.R.M. 297 of 2020
In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 9.1.2020 in connection with Banarhat P.S case no. 167 of 2019 dated 17.9.2019 under sections 376AB of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act
And
In Re : Fulchand Munda @ Bura …….. petitioner
Mr. A Banerjee
…… for the petitioner
Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharya Md Kutubuddin
…… for the State
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
Having considered the materials in the case diary prima
facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner in subjecting a minor to penetrative sexual assault, we are of the opinion that in
view of the gravity of the offence this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to a petitioner charged with penetrative sexual assault involving a minor under Section 376-A IPC and Section 6 POCSO.
Whether the gravity of the offence precludes the petitioner from being considered a fit case for bail under Section 439 CrPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Fulchand Munda @ Bura
The State
Suvra Ghosh
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
