An Application For Bail Under … vs In Re: Subha Singh @ Subho Singh on 18 July, 2017

1

25
18.07.2017

sm
Allowed
CRM No.6552 of 2017

In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 04.07.2017 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case
No.439 of 2017 dated 04.05.2017 under sections 363/343/368/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 adding section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012

And

In re: Subha Singh @ Subho Singh .. Petitioner(In Jail)

Ms.Jeenia Rudra… for the petitioner

Mr.Pradipta Ganguly
Ms.Sukanya Bhattacharya … for the State.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the

parties. Perused the case diary.

The petitioner is in custody for 72 days.

It is true that the victim-girl is minor, but when we read her

statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. together with the

injury report, we find that the same are not matching.

It is an admitted position that both labia majora and labia

minora are normal. There was no injury on the vaginal one. There

was also no injury in perineum.

Having regard to above and considering the petitioner’s length

of detention in custody and when no case is made out from the side

of the State that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to

abscond, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands allowed.
2

Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond

of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom

must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court

(under POCSO Act) at Jalpaiguri.

Accordingly, this application for bail is disposed of.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

29
18.07.2017
sm
Rejected

CRM No.6572 of 2017

In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 04.07.2017 in connection with Sagar Police Station Case
No.196 of 2016 dated 17.12.2016 under sections 498A/306/304B/341 of the
Indian Penal Code.

And
In Re:- Hosiar Ali Khan …. Petitioner (In jail)

Mr.Debashis Das … for the petitioner

Mr.Arun Kumar Maity, Ld.APP
Ms.Sukanya Bhattacharya. … for the State

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused

the case diary.

3

The petitioner is the husband. He is in custody for 211 days. The case

has not yet been committed.

Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned APP draws our attention to the

statements of the two neighbouring people, which are at pages 10 and 11 of the

case diary.

Now, going through the same, we think this is not a fit case for bail.

Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.)

(Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *