Dismissed

Haider Sk@Haidar Sekh@Haydar Sekh v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC10 Mar 2021CRM/451/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for bail under Section 439 CrPC regarding cases involving rape and acts against children was rejected. The Court found the petitioner's culpability explicit in charge sheet materials and refused to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. The application is dismissed.

Haider Sk@Haidar Sekh@Haydar Sekh Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

10.03.2021 Item No.01 Ct.No.28 Subha rejected

¶2

C.R.M. 451 of 2021

¶3

(Via Video Conference)

¶4

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : Haider Sk @ Haidar Sekh @ Haydar Sekh ... Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Anisur Rahaman ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Rudrardipta Nandy ... For the State. Ms. Debapriya Mukherjee

¶8

…for the victim girl(Heena Das)

¶9

The present application under Section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred in connection with C-SPL 50 of 2020 arising out of Berhampur P. S. Case No. 620 of 2020 dated 29-06-2020 under Sections 376/370/372/373/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/7 of IPTA, 1956 and Sections 4/8/12/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the J.J Act.

¶10

Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He is not the owner of ‘Abar Aso Dhaba’. In the

¶11

¶12

complaint it has inter alia been stated that one of the owners of the concerned hotel is one Mallick Haider Sk., who had fled away. From the records it would be explicit that the petitioner was at the place of occurrence and was arrested as a customer. In view of such inconsistencies and since upon competition of investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted, further detention of the petitioner, who is in custody for more than 240 days, is not warranted.

¶13

He further submits that a co-accused person namely, Emajuddin Sk has already been enlarged on bail by an order dated 9^th December, 2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM 9565 of 2020.

¶14

Drawing our attention to the statements of the victim girls, as recorded under Section 164 of the Code, the other materials in the case diary and letters issued by Prodhan, Manindranagar Gram Panchayat and the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer(Sadar), Berhampore, Murshidabad, Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and submits that the petitioner and one Arman Sk. were running the concerned hotel on rental basis and the actual owner of the hotel namely, ‘Abar Aso Dhaba’ is one Subhankar Chakraborty. He also informs this Court that further investigation is in progress.

¶15

We have perused the materials in the case diary. The petitioner’s name features in the charge sheet, wherein

¶16

¶17

there is only one Haider Sk. Prima facie , the petitioner’s culpability is explicit from the materials on record. The offence alleged is despicable in nature and the victims are vulnerable witnesses. Considering the gravity of the offence and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner’s prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶18

The application for bail being CRM 451 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

The personal appearance of the investigating officer is dispensed with and the case diary is handed over to Mr. Nandy.

¶20

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶21

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

¶22

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Haider Sk@Haidar Sekh@Haydar Sekh v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haider Sk@Haidar Sekh@Haydar Sekh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoyara Bibi Vs State of West Bengal

Mangal Das Vs State of West Bengal

MD Ibrahim and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Baitul Sk@Baitulla Sk@Baidul Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Maser Ali@Maser Sekh Vs State of West Bengal

Tapu Gain Alias Toufik Hossain Gain Alias Taufik Gain Vs State of West Bengal