Allowed

Rahul Shaw v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC10 Nov 2020CRM/8805/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment granted bail to the petitioner in a POCSO case. The court noted the survivor was a minor at the time of the incident but is now a major. Bail was granted subject to security and sureties, with conditions preventing contact with the victim and attending trial dates.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing security of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions.

Rahul Shaw Vs State of West Bengal — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2020)

¶1

10-11-2020 Subrata/Rajib item no.17 bail granted

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction

¶3

The State of West Bengal

¶4

In Re : Application under section 439 CrPC in connection with POCSO Case No. 58 of 2020 arising out of Baranagar P.S. Case No.323 of 2020 dated August 10, 2020 under sections 10/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with section 354/506 IPC.

¶5

Mr. Partha Sarathi Maitra …for the petitioner Mr. Goutam Wilson Mr. N.P. Agarwal … for the State

¶6

The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video-conference on the basis of such undertaking.

¶7

The petitioner claims that he had relationship with the survivor and the complaint has been lodged upon the relationship going sour.

¶8

The State refers to the statement of the survivor recorded under section 164 of the Code. According to the State, the survivor was 17 years old when the incident took place.

¶9

The petitioner says that the survivor is now a major.

¶10

According to the statement, it is evident that the survivor was acquainted with the petitioner. The statement of the survivor is no impediment to the petitioner being granted bail, except that there is a clear threat recorded therein made by the petitioner to the survivor that he would throw acid on the survivor.

¶11

The petitioner will be enlarged on bail upon furnishing security of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount

¶12

¶13

each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the appropriate court in North 24 Parganas. The petitioner will attend every date fixed for trial and any unexplained absence would entitle the trial court to cancel the petitioner’s bail without reference to this court.

¶14

The petitioner will not attempt to make any contact with the victim. It is also made clear that if the slightest of hurt is caused to the victim, even in a road accident, an adverse inference may be drawn against the petitioner herein.

¶15

CRM No.8805 of 2020 is disposed of.

¶16

[Arijit Banerjee, J] [Sanjib Banerjee, J]

Rahul Shaw v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Shaw v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Dayal Barwaria Vs State of West Bengal

Mira Chakraborty Vs Union of India

Manick Roy Vs State of West Bengal

Akash Patra Vs State of West Bengal

Bappaditya Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal

Kanak Ray Vs State of West Bengal