1

24.12.2019

Ct. 35
Sl. 8
KS

C.R.M. 12266 of 2019
Dr. Saptarshi Banerjee
‐Vs.‐
The State of West Bengal
In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure filed on 20.12.2019 in connection with Special Case No.180 of 2019
corresponding to Behala P.S. Case No.231 of 2019 dated 01.08.2019 under
Section 341/Section323/Section354B/Section506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh
Mr. Tathagata Majumdar
Ms. Srimoyee Mukherjee
….. For the Petitioner
Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Mr. Suman De
…..For the State

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner who is a consultant Anesthetic

working in Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar who is in jail custody for

nearly 25 days.

The case of Behala Police Station Case No.231 of 2019 dated 01.08.2019

under Section 341/ Section323/ Section354B/ Section506 of the Indian Penal Code was started

initially and thereafter Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 was added subsequently.

I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and

learned advocate appearing for the State.
2

On a bare reading of the First Information Report I do not find any

ingredient of offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act alleging sexual

assault by the petitioner against his own daughter aged 6 years.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner invites my attention to

the First Information Report earlier filed in Haridevpur Police Station Case

being No.282 dated 10.07.2019 under Section 498A/ Section341/ Section323/ Section34 of the Indian

Penal Code filed by the de facto complainant/wife against the

petitioner/husband. Subsequently this case has been registered on the

complaint of the de facto complainant/wife. I think that there is no whisper

of any offence under the POCSO Act. However, in the course of

investigation, the Investigating Officer appears to have examined the

daughter of the petitioner and the de facto complainant under Section 161

and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate. There has been a considerable delay in

examination of the victim witness who was available for examination on the

date of registration of the case itself. So the statement of the daughter

appears to be tutored by the de facto complainant against the petitioner as

they have developed souring relationships in their marital tie.

Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner shall be released upon

furnishing bail bond of Rs.3,000/‐ (Rupees Three Thousand Only) with one

surety subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court, POCSO Act, Alipore,

South 24 Parganas.

Thus, CRM 12266 of 2019 is allowed.

3

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made

available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)