AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Lodh, J
Heard Mr. Jahidul Islam, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP appearing for the respondent-State.
This is an application for granting bail to the accused, Jayanta Rout, who was arrested on 16.05.2023 in connection with Amtali PS case No. 71 of 2023 registered under Sections 376/120(B)/376D/328/366/342/225 of IPC corresponding to ST(T-1) 26 of 2023 and has been in custody for the last 456 days.
In the instant case, charge-sheet has been submitted on 07.07.2023 and learned counsel for the applicant has annexed copy of the charge-sheet alongwith the application for bail.
The main grounds agitated by learned counsel for the applicant in support of granting bail to the accused are that, firstly, the accused has been in custody for the last 456 days and there is no chance of commencement of trial within few months, as such, the accused may get the benefit of bail. Learned PP has submitted the case diary. Secondly, there is no direct evidence against the accused. Thirdly, the accused was temporary driver of the vehicle in which the victim as well as other accused persons were present. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon 4 judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. (i) Vivek Kumar vs. State of UP reported in (2000) 9 SCC 443; (ii) State of Kerala vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784, para 15; (iii) Angela Harish Sontakke vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)3 SCC 723, para 3 and 4; (iv) Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe and another vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021)3 SCC 725.
In rebuttal, Mr. Datta, learned PP has submitted that the accused has been involved in serious crime and the victim has been subjected to gang rape. Learned PP has further submitted that there is direct evidence against the accused. The accused has been identified during T.I. parade by the victim.
I have perused the case diary as well as the charge-sheet.
It is found that the victim girl during T.I. parade identified the accused as one of the persons who raped her. From her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it also comes to light that the victim girl has categorically stated that the accused had raped her. In her statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., the victim girl has clearly stated that she could not say how many times the accused persons had raped her. She has started that the accused had mixed some pills with water which compelled her to sleep.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as the statement of the victim girl as revealed in the charge sheet and the case diary. I have also taken note of the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
In the case of Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found the accused person in custody close to four years. In the case of Angela Harish Sontakke (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered that the accused had been in custody for over five years and the trial has not commenced yet. In the case of Vivek Kumar (supra) and Raneef (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the allegations leveled against the accused persons do not fulfill the requirements of UAPA Act.
Having regards to the submissions and citations placed before this court, I am of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused.
It is true that this is not the stage of imposing any punishment upon the accused person. Punishment is imposed after completion of trial considering the merits of the case. In the instant case, the principal accused has not been arrested as yet. Prima facie, I find that there are substantial allegations against the accused and his release may affect conduct of fair trial.
I find merit in the submission of learned PP that if the accused is released on bail he will try to influence the victim girl and even may threaten her and her family members to withdraw the case. Though it is not the stage of imposing punishment upon the accused person yet on consideration of the consequence of releasing the accused on bail, as I narrated here-in-above, the bail application filed by the applicant stands rejected. However, it is made clear that the trial court may complete the trial within a period of 4 (four) months from today since 63 witnesses are to adduce their evidence.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court.
Return back the case diary.