1

30.01.2019. C.R.A. No. 150 of 2018
rc. with
CRAN No. 1736 of 2018

In the matter of: Ijarul Mallick@ Ejarul Mallick .

…Petitioner.

-Versus
The State of West Bengal Anr.

Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta
Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy …for the Appellants

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Shiladitya Banerjee … for the State

This is an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure arising out of Criminal Appeal being CRA No. 150 of 2018

whereunder and whereby the appellants has assailed the judgment and order

dated 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Mekhliganj, Coochbehar, in Sessions Trial No. 5(1) of 2017

corresponding to Sessions Case No. 05 of 2017 arising out of Mekhliganj Police

Station Case No. 252 of 2016 dated 02.09.2016, thereby convicting the

appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 370(2)/370A(2)

of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to

suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month for commission of

offences punishable under Section 370(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.

5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month

for commission of offences punishable under section 370A(2) of the Indian

Penal Code with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently and
2

also acquitting the appellant of the charge so framed against him under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was instituted at the instance of the father of the victim lady

who is admittedly major lady already married having child.

Having heard Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, learned advocate for the petitioner

and Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the State who has

drawn my attention to the observation made in inner page 12 of the impugned

judgment to the effect that the victim lady being a major and married lady

having a child it was not possible for the accused to have influenced her and to

bring her from her house unless she herself had willingness to go with the

accused. It is also observed that the victim lady had been calling her father also

over telephone and talking to him but despite that she had never stated

anything about being forced into prostitution by the accused.

In view of such observation as depicted from the judgment itself there is

a scope of success and accordingly considering that the appellant is in custody

for last 2 years 5 months, the prayer for bail is considered and allowed.

Accordingly, the accused persons/petitioners be released on bail upon

furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each,

one of whom is to be local subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional

District Sessions Judge, Mekhliganj, Coochbehar on conditions that they will

attend the court of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Mekhliganj,

Coochbeh until further order or till the hearing of the appeal whichever is earlier.

Let the appeal be made ready for its hearing.

3

Lower Court Record though called for has not been received.

Department is directed to take steps for calling for the Lower Court

Record to prepare the requisite number of Paper Book so as to make the

appeal ready for hearing.

Thus, CRAN No. 1736 of 2018 is disposed of.

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.)