In Re: Tarapada Bauri vs State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3217 Cal

                                     CRM No.2202 of 2021
                                     Via video conference
14.06.21

(S.R.) In re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Sl.22 Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Bishnupur Police Ct.28 Station Case No.234 of 2016 dated 30/12/2016 under Sections 376D/366A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act;

And In re: Tarapada Bauri ... petitioner.

                 Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
                 Mr. Soumik Ganguli                         ... for the petitioner.

                 Ms. Faria Hossain
                 Ms. Sonali Das                             ...for the State.

Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in an alleged

incident, which occurred on 28 th December, 2016. There was a split

trial and the principal accused, namely, Prakash Sarkar, was convicted

by a judgment delivered on 30 th October, 2019. The allegations levelled

against the petitioner herein are absolutely unfounded, as would be

explicit from the statement of the witnesses as recorded in course of

trial. In support of such contention, he has drawn our attention to the

contents of the judgment delivered on 30th October, 2019.

He further submits that the petitioner had yet not been declared

a proclaimed offender and as such, there is no bar to consider the

present application for anticipatory bail. In support of such

contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the

case of Sambhu Halder v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2014) 2

C.Cr.LR (Cal) 583.

Ms. Hossain, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes

the petitioner's prayer and draws our attention to several documents in

the case diary. She further submits that the petitioner had been

absconding since the date of the alleged incident on 28 th December,

2016. Warrant of arrest and proclamation of arrest had already been

issued against the petitioner.

We have heard the learned advocates and considered the

materials in the case diary. It appears that the petitioner had been

absconding for a substantial period of time and in view thereof, the

split trial was conducted. Considering the gravity of the offence, the

nature of allegations and the conduct of the petitioner, we are not

inclined to exercise any discretion in his favour. As such, his prayer

for anticipatory bail is refused.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail being CRM

No.2202 of 2021 is dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)