A Single Judge Court rejected a bail application in a rape case against a child under Bipocso and IPC. The petitioner was in custody for 295 days. The Court rejected bail due to the gravity of the offence and noted the petitioner incorrectly approached the Court instead of the CBI, an act deprecated by the Bench.
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.
02.03.2022 36 Ct. No. 29 KAUSHIK REJECTED
C.R.M. (DB) 496 of 2022
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Nabagram Police Station Case No . 114 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021 under Sections 376D/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 4/6/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
And
In Re : Nazir Hassain @ Dhalo @ Nazir Hossain. ...… petitioner Mr. Navanil De Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty Mr. Subhrajit Dey .…for the petitioner Mr. Phiroze Edulji Mr. Samrat Goswami .…for the CBI
Petitioner seeks bail.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is in custody for 295 days. The police filed charge-sheet and, therefore, further detention of the petitioner is not required.
Learned advocate appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). He submits that, the petitioner was one of the other persons who were involved in ravishing the victim. There is another case pending against the petitioner involving similar nature of offences. The petitioner was
2
subsequently identified in the Trade Identification Parade. He also submits that, the petitioner deliberately filed an application without making his client a party-respondent knowing fully well that the investigations were being conducted by his client.
There is substance in the submission made on behalf of the CBI. This practice of not making CBI as a party respondent when it is conducting the investigations is deprecated.
Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein, we are unable to grant bail to the petitioner.
In such circumstances, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected and the application being CRM (DB) 496 of 2022 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted in a serious offence involving rape against a child and where the accused deliberately approached the wrong authority for bail.
Whether the invitation of the CBI as a party respondent is mandatory in bail applications during ongoing investigation.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Nazir Hassain
Central Bureau of Investigation
Debangsu Basak
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
