Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sambhu Das vs Unknown on 22 November, 2021
22.11.2021
Mithun/
Ct.No.42.
IA No: CRAN/1/2019(Old No:CRAN/5032/2019),
CRAN/3/2020, CRAN/4/2021
In
CRA/750/2019
(Via Video Conference)
In re: An application for bail in connection with appeal under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection
with CRA 750 of 2019, judgment dated 06.02.2019 and order
dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Tamluk, Purba
Medinipur convicting the appellants under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code.
And
In the matter of: Sambhu Das
...Appellant.
Mr. Suman De, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mrs. Faria Hossain, Adv.
Ms. Baisali Basu, Adv.
...for the State.
Re: CRAN/4/2021
The instant application is taken up for hearing.
The accused/appellant/petitioner has renewed the prayer
for bail for filing the instant application.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner
that the petitioner made the previous application for bail
approximately before six months from the date of filing of the
application. The previous application for bail was rejected
considering the gravity of the offence. But the accused was
sentenced to term imprisonment for 7 years for committing
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submits that
there are several discrepancies in the judgment, which was
recorded by this Court while rejecting bail of the accused on 9 th
March, 2021. Out of 7 years of imprisonment, the accused has
already served out 4 years in jail. Therefore, he should be
released on bail.
In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the
petitioner relies on a decision reported in Kiran Kumar Vs.
State of M.P.
Previously this Court rejected the prayer for bail
considering the nature and gravity of offence in which the
accused was sentenced. In a case under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code, the accused was sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, which is the minimum
sentence prescribed by the statute.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 6 :
Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P. It is observed in the said
decision relying upon the previous decision of the Apex Court in
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 1999 C Cr LR (SC) 247 that in case of term
imprisonment normal rule is to suspend the imprisonment
allowing bail to the appellant/accused. It is also held that the
rejection is an exception in such a case.
Learned P.P.-in-Charge has raised objection against the
prayer for bail and submits that there is no changed
circumstance at present to grant liberty of bail to the appellant.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and
the Prosecution and in view of the fact that the appellant has
already served out sentence for about 4 years, I am inclined to
release him on bail. The appellant may be enlarged on bail of
Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk
with further conditions that if on bail, he must meet the Officer-
in-Charge of local Police Station once in a fortnight and on the
first date of his visit, he shall file an affidavit, stating residential
address, mobile number and all other particulars, if any, so
that he may be tracked during the pendency of the trial.
Since the record is received by the department, the
concerned staff of the department is directed to examine the
record within 15 days from the date of this order and to prepare
requisites number of paper books within 15 days thereafter.
Matter to appear in the list on 20 th December, 2021 for
further order.
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J. )
