Araghya Bagchi vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Bibash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Birendra Burman, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned

counsel appearing for the informant.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 240 of 2019 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections

376(2)(a)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

The informant is the student of Sheyn International School. It has been alleged that the petitioner taking advantage of the family relation had proposed

to the informant in March, 2018. Initially the attempt made by the petitioner to enter into a physical relationship with the informant faltered but

subsequently it started and continued for about five months. It is alleged that a mobile was also gifted to the informant but she was forced to return the

same by her family to the sister of the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the petitioner used to give sleeping pills to the informant in order to kill

her father.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Mango P. S. Case No. 240 of 2019 has been instituted.

Mr. Bibash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been made an accused in the present case. It has been

stated that there was no forcible conduct on the part of the petitioner to establish physical relationship with the informant and it also appears that the

petitioner and the informant were on friendly terms. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a Research Scholar of ISM (IIT), Dhanbad in the

Mechanical Engineering Branch. It has also been stated that the petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2019.

Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the informant has stated that admittedly the informant is a minor and, therefore, there is no question

of any consent on her part. It has further been stated that the petitioner had induced the informant to establish physical relationship with him. He has

further stated that the attempts were also made by the petitioner to cause the death of the father of the informant by administration of medicines.

The case diary which was called for has been perused. Paragraph â€" 3 contains the statement of the father of the informant namely Satyajit

Banerjee who had stated that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of his younger brother. He has further stated that he had never objected to the

informant visiting his brother’s place. In February when his daughter returned from Asansol there was a perceptible change in behavior and she

always used to surreptitiously talk on the mobile. Drawing suspicion, her mobile was checked and obscene conversations were found in the gmail

account of the informant. This witness has further stated that on questioning the informant she had disclosed about the physical exploitation done by

the petitioner. The grand-mother of the informant namely Sivani Banerjee and the mother of the informant namely Sujata Banerjee have also given

their statements under Section 161 CrPC which finds place at Paragraphs â€" 7 and 8 of the case diary and which basically reiterates what has been

stated by the father of the informant. Paragraph â€" 16 contains one of the messages which has been sent by the petitioner to the informant which is

by way of love letter but the same does not speak of any sexual innuendos. The statement of the victim recorded under section 164 CrPC finds place

at Paragraph â€" 38 of the case diary in which she has stated that she and the petitioner had developed friendship and last year when she had gone to

Asansol, the petitioner had made forcible physical relationship with her which continued till March, 2019. She has further stated that he had also given

her medicines namely Himalaya Tagara, Health Vit, Mellatonin to administer them to her father as he would never allow them to get married. The

Medical Report of the victim-girl finds place at Paragraph â€" 61 of the case diary which reveals that on the basis of radiological examination, the age

of the victim was assessed to be 18± one year.

The call details reveal that several conversations and chats had taken place between the petitioner and the informant which is available in Paragraph

â€" 101 of the case diary. The statement of one Shravan Modi has been recorded in Paragraph â€" 104 of the case diary in which he has stated that

he was knowing the informant from before. He has also stated that he had given her Himalaya Tagara on the saying of the informant since she was

suffering from sleeplessness. He has also stated that it was in his account that Rs. 8,500/- was deposited and she had got Nokia mobile purchased

through him. He also disclosed that money used to be sent to his account by the petitioner.

It, therefore, appears that the petitioner and the informant were known to each other from before as the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the uncle of

the informant. It also appears that the overtures made by the petitioner were responded to by the informant. It has been alleged that the petitioner had

continued to establish physical relationship with the informant continuously for five months but the informant never complained to anyone about such

act on the part of the petitioner. In fact her conduct reveals that she was in a love affair with the petitioner. Long conversations and chatting on the

mobile, accepting the amount which was sent by the petitioner to the account of Shravan Modi, her behaviourial changes after she returned from

Asansol are some of the noticeable facts which emerged during the investigation. No doubt it is true that the informant is a minor but the entire

incident clearly points to a love affair between the two. The petitioner has remained in custody for more than four months.

On consideration of the entire aspects of the case as noted above, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail

bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge â€" V,

Jamshedpur, in connection with Mango P. S. Case No. 240 of 2019.