In an application under Section 439 CrPC, the Court recorded victim evidence and noted the petitioner contributed to trial delay. The Court declined to grant bail, rejecting the plea on record.
Bail application rejected; co-conspirator bail application rejected.
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.
18.07.2023 Sl. No.9 akd [Rejected]
C. R. M. (DB) 1248 of 2023
In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.03.2023 in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No.341 of 2018 dated 28.11.2018 under Sections 363/365/506/376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
And
In Re: Swapan Hansda
… … Petitioner
Ms. Mobashshara Alam
… … for the petitioner
Mr. Prasun Kr. Datta .. ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Santanu Deb Roy
… … for the State
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties.
Evidence of the victim girl has been recorded. Petitioner prayed for adjournment of cross-examination of the victim and has contributed to the delay in trial. Under such circumstances and in view of nature of evidence on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
The application for bail is thus rejected.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted under Section 439 CrPC in a POCSO case involving a recorded victim evidence.
Whether the petitioner's delay in cross-examining the victim supports bail denial.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Swapan Hansda
The State
Ajay Kumar Gupta
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
