Two bail applications were disposed of. In the first, involving rape of a child, bail was rejected due to gravity. In the second, involving financial fraud and absconding, bail was rejected on prima facie involvement and flight risk.
Bail rejected in both connected applications.
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.
26.07.2021 2 sdas rejected
C.R.M. 2534 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Harishchandrapur Police Station Case No. 793 of 2019 dated 29.10.2019 under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
And
In Re : Entaj Ali @ Intajul Ali @ Entajul ….. petitioner
Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Musharraf Alam Sk Mr. Krishan Ray Ms. Amrita Chel Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Anamitra Banerjee … for the petitioner
Mr. T. K. Ghosh Mr. Arindam Sen … for the State
The allegation is that the petitioner ravished the survivor, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, at night when the survivor went to answer nature’s call.
The charge is under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for 338 days. It is also submitted that the medical report is not in consonance with the allegations made.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State has produced the case diary.
We have gone through the material in the case diary. We have seen the statement of the survivor girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2
On an overall consideration of the material on record and considering the possibility of the petitioner committing the offence and the nature and gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to allow this application for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the application for bail being CRM 2534 of 2021 is rejected.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
3
C.R.M. 192 of 2018
In Re.: An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.01.2018 in connection with Karimpur Police Station Case No. 136 of 2012 dated 03.07.2012 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
And
In Re : Rabish Kumar Upadhyay ….. petitioner
Mr. Asraf Ali … for the petitioner
Mr. Debojyoti Deb … for the State
Having considered the materials on record prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of misappropriation of monies of the innocent depositors and the fact that the petitioner has absconded for a protracted period of time, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
The application for bail is, thus, rejected.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with rape under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with cheating and forgery who has absconded for a protracted period.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Entaj Ali
Rabish Kumar Upadhyay
The State
Suvra Ghosh
Arijit Banerjee
Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
