Sagnik Dey vs State

We have heard Mr. Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate for the accused/petitioner and the Learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. We have perused the Case Diary in details as pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor and we have also perused the materials on record.

It reveals that the victim in San Francisco, USA engaged in a joint business relationship with the accused/petitioner. Regarding the allegation of rape committed upon her, so made on 2nd November, 2019, Mr. Ghosh has drawn our attention to page 10 of the bail application, which shows that the victim herself invited the petitioner and some other common friends at a party on 2nd November, 2019 at 9.49 P.M. in a hotel, for which online invitation was given to all friends including the accused. All the invitee friends including the accused assembled at the scheduled place.

The FIR at page 12 of application lodged on 30th November, 2019, by the mother of the victim, wherein it has been disclosed that the victim was subjected to physical abuse and mental harassment on 2nd November, 2019 after getting her intoxicated by the accused. Further allegation is there in the FIR that the accused did sex with the victim for maintaining a serious relationship between them after getting the victim inebriated condition. Over the self-same incident, a complaint was also lodged before the police at San Francisco, U.S.A. on 26th November, 2019, when the victim did not seek any medical evaluation over the alleged incident pertaining to her violation. From the material disclosed before us it appears that while the victim went abroad for pursuing her higher study in medical science, the accused visited United States in connection with his profession after completion of MBA and both entered into a business relationship which ultimately turned into a serious romantic relationship between them.

Case Diary placed before us also reveals that the victim and the accused persons had maintained business relationship for a considerable period of time. In pursuance of our earlier order, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded and the victim has also been medically examined. The victim has stated that she had maintained relationship with accused for a long time and did not disclose anything before any other authority. The accused was taken in police custody for about 3 days (2nd December, 2019 to 5th December, 2019). His custody is continuing since 2nd December, 2019.

Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that although accused/petitioner is in custody for more than one month but for valuable inputs from San Francisco, this Court should allow more time.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits before us that the accused is having a character of deceiting woman by maintaining contemporaneous relationship with several other women and the violation was committed not only by practising fraud but also by deliberate suppression of facts creating a misconception of fact and he has placed reliance of the statement of another lady who has allegedly been married by the accused where she has made allegation that he suppressed the relationship of the accused with the present victim.

We have perused the statements so placed before us but we do not find any relevance of the said document at the moment, although it may be of some importance at the trial.

Learned Public Prosecutor has further relied on a decision in Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh published in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 509. The decision cited is on an appeal where the appellants were convicted under Section 376 (i) of the Indian Penal Code after the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court upon evaluation of certain facts, evident from the case record, adduced in trial which has no bearing in the present application to grant or not to grant bail.

On perusal of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and other available records produced before us, we are of the view that the possibility of consensual sex of the victim with the accused cannot be ruled out at this stage. Further investigation no doubt may be necessary but no further custodial detention of the accused is necessary. Since accused is in custody from 2nd December, 2019 and in the meantime, investigation has fairly proceeded and upon seeing the progress of investigation, further detention is no longer justified.

We, therefore, grant the petitioner bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, and of whom, one must be local to the satisfaction of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas and on condition that the accused shall deposit his passport with the learned trial court and shall not travel out of India without leave of the Court and further that he will meet the Investigating Officer of this case at least once in a week for a period of three months from date.

The C.R.M. No.11668 of 2019 stands disposed of.

A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.