Haridas Das @ Hari Das Vs the State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2024)

Haridas Das @ Hari Das Vs the State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether a renewed (second) application for anticipatory bail may be entertained, given the guideline that such an application lies only on a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events, and not on grounds that the earlier court failed to consider available materials or unagitated points. +1 more

Court's answer

Applying the guideline of the Hon'ble Special Bench relied upon by this court, the court treats the filing of the charge-sheet as not constituting a substantial change in the facts and circumstances, and on that basis declines to entertain the second anticipatory bail application notwithstanding the petitioner's plea of changed circumstances.

Ratio / Principle

The court holds that entertaining this renewed application would go against the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Special Bench, and accordingly rejects the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – renewal/second application – guideline of the Hon'ble Special Bench in Sudip Sen v. State of West Bengal, 2010 Cr LJ 4628: a second application for anticipatory bail before the sessions court or High Court is permissible only on a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events, and not on the plea that the earlier court failed to consider available materials or points not agitated earlier; filing of a charge-sheet is not a substantial change. Coordinate Bench of the Calcutta High Court had on September 11, 2024 declined the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, accused in Coochbehar Sadar Women P.S. Case No. 110 of 2022 (dated 30.08.2022) under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On renewal, the petitioner pleaded changed circumstances – filing of charge-sheet and a subsequently collected medical report said not to support the prosecution case. Holding that entertaining the application would offend the Special Bench guideline, the court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail and disposed of CRM (A) 870 of 2024 (25.11.2024; Shampa Sarkar and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, JJ.).

25.11.2024 Item No.174 Court No.1 (GB)

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

CRM (A) 870 of 2024

In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Coochbehar Sadar Women Police Station Case No. 110 of 2022 dated 30.08.2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012

And

In the matter of: Haridas Das @ Hari Das

….Petitioner.

Mr. Kumar Shantanu, Ms. Puja Chakraborty, Ms. Nikita Paul

…for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kollol Acharjee, Mr. Sagnick Sankar Sikdar

… for the State.

Mr. Ananda Paul, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Sandip Guha Roy

… for the De facto Complainant.

This application has been presented with a renewal of the prayer for pre-arrest bail. Records reveal that a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated September 11, 2024 declined to extend the benefit under Section 438 Cr. P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, at the relevant time there was no medical report. The report has been subsequently collected by the investigating agency, wherefrom it is evident that such medical report does not support the prosecution case. Hence, he has filed this application for pre-arrest bail on the ground that the circumstances have changed on account of filing of charge-sheet.

The learned advocates for the State as also the de facto complainant oppose the prayer for bail.

2

A Hon’ble Special Bench in the decision of Sudip Sen versus State of West Bengal reported in 2010 Cr LJ 4628 held that a person will be entitled to move the application for anticipatory bail before the court of sessions or the High Court, only on the ground of substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. However, such person would not be entitled to move the second application on the ground that the court on earlier occasion failed to consider any particular aspect or materials on record or any point which was available, but had not been agitated at the time of placing the earlier application. Filing of charge-sheet is not a substantial change in the facts and circumstances.

If this application is entertained, the same will go against the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Special Bench. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 870 of 2024 is disposed of.

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

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)