Dismissed

Baitul Sk@Baitulla Sk@Baidul Sk v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC10 Mar 2021CRM/454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench dismissed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving IPC Sections 376, 370, 372, 373, 34, IPTA, and POCSO. The court held that prima facie culpability was explicit, the offence was despicable, and victims were vulnerable, thus disallowing bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for bail is rejected and the application is dismissed.

Baitul Sk@Baitulla Sk@Baidul Sk Vs State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

10.03.2021 Item No.02 Ct.No.28 Subha rejected

¶2

C.R.M. 454 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 : Baitul Sk @ Baitulla Sk @ Baidul Sk ... Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Anisur Rahaman ... For the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Suman De

¶9

... For the State.

¶10

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.

¶11

Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely

¶12

¶13

implicated. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are in the abstract and the materials would not disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Upon competition of investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted and as such further detention of the petitioner, who is in custody since in 29^th June, 2020, is not warranted.

¶14

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.

¶15

Drawing our attention to the statements of the victim girls, as recorded under Section 164 of the Code and the other materials in the case diary, Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposes the petitioner’s prayer and submits that the petitioner is the assistant manager of the concerned hotel and is directly involved in the alleged offences. He also informs this Court that further investigation is in progress.

¶16

We have perused the materials in the case diary. 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.

¶17

¶18

The application for bail being CRM 454 of 2021 is,

¶19

accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

The case diary is handed over to Mr. Nandy.

¶21

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order

¶22

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶23