Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Xxxxx vs Unknown on 11 July, 2025
11.07.2025
Item No.13.
Daily List
Court No.42
Mithun
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
CRM (M) 746 of 2025
In re : An Application for bail under under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C., 1973/ Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Special ST 32 of 2023,
Special no.204 of 2022 arising out of Baruipur Police Station
Case No.1634 of 2022, dated 15.10.2022, under Section 10 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
charge sheet no.1533 of 2022 dated 31.10.2022, under
Sections 376AB/376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012 pending before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, 1st Court, Baruipur, South 24-Pargahas.
-And-
In the matter of : XXXXX
… … Petitioner (in Jail)
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed,
Mr. Ghazala Firdaus,
Mr. Sk. Saidullah,
Mr. Mithun Mondal,
Md. Arsalan,
Ms. Zannat Haque
… … For the Petitioner
Mr. Saurov Mallick
… for the de facto complainant.
Ms. Faria Hossain, APP,
Ms. Mausumi Sarkar
… …For the State
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner has been falsely implicated due to some family
dispute. Petitioner is in custody for last 3 years. Due to long
incarceration of the petitioner, the family of the petitioner
2
including the victim and the de facto complainant are suffering
acute financial distress. In such backdrop, he seeks for
enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits that
the entire prosecution case has been initiated at the instance of
overzealous police authorities. He leaves the matter to the
discretion of the Court.
Learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposes such
prayer for bail and submits that the victim in the instant case
has been ravished by her father. The victim has consistently
stated before the Magistrate as well as during her examination in
Court of the penetrative sexual assault upon her by the
petitioner who happens to be her father. The POCSO Act has
been enacted to protect the interest of the child both as a victim
as well as witness, which in no circumstances should be taken
lightly as offences of private nature and in fact such offences are
bound to be taken as offences against the society. To buttress
her contention, she relies on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. -versus- State of
Rajasthan & Ors. reported in [2024] 11 S.C.R.641. She seeks
for dismissal of the bail application.
Perused the case and diary and materials on record.
The victim in her statement before the Magistrate as well
as in Court during her examination implicates the petitioner,
who happens to be her father, of sexual violence and assault
upon her. She has also stated before the attending Doctor of
3
such fact. The allegation as narrated by the victim is serious
one. At this stage, it would apposite to reproduce Paragraph
No.12 in Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as hereunder:-
“12. The objects and reasons for the enactment of the POCSO Act,
as extracted above, would undoubtedly show that quashment of
proceeding initiated under POCSO Act abruptly by invoking the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without permitting it to mature
into a trial, except on extremely compelling reasons ex facie
malafidely initiated or initiated solely to settle the score etc., would
go against the very intention of the legislature behind the
enactment. As noted earlier, it is the inadequacy of the existing
laws to address certain issues relating sexual offences against the
children that made the legislature to come up with the aforesaid
legislation with a view to protect and respect the privacy and
confidentiality of children and to ensure their physical, emotional,
intellectual and social development. The POCSO Act also
addressed the lack of provisions defining various offences against
the children and also adequate penal provisions therefor. A careful
scanning of the various provisions under the POCSO Act would
reveal that with a view to achieve the aforesaid objects and
purposes various offences against the children are specifically
defined and provisions for adequate penalization are also inserted
in the Act. Obviously, rubbing the breast of a child would constitute
an offence of „sexual assault‟ under Section 7 of POCSO Act,
punishable with imprisonment of earlier drescription for a term
which shall not be less than three years and may extend to five
years and also fine. They would reveal that the commission of
such offences against the children should be viewed as heinous
and serious. Needless to say, that commission of such offences
cannot be taken lightly as offences of private nature and in fact,
such offences are bound to be taken as offences against the
society. In the decision in Attorney General for India v. Satish
and Anr. at paragraph 38, this Court held thus:-
“The act of touching any sexual part of the body of a child
with sexual intent or any other act involving physical contact with
sexual intent, could not be trivialized or held insignificant or
peripheral so as to exclude such act from the purview of “sexual
assault” under Section 7. As held by this Court in Balram
Kumawat v. Union of India, the law would have to be interpreted
having regard to the subject-matter of the offence and to the object
of the law it seeks to achieve. The purpose of the law cannot be to
allow the offender to sneak out of the meshes of law”.
Bearing in mind the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as indicated above, the materials and the nature the
gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
4
However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial to
the fullest extent and conclude the same at an early date without
granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
Prosecution is directed to produce witnesses before the
Trial Court on the schedule dates fixed for examination of
witnesses.
Parties are directed to cooperate in the trial before the
Trial Court.
The application being CRM(M) 746 of 2025 stands
dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)