Debasish Sengupta @ Debashish ... vs The State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5017 Cal

                                       1



                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE


The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
                 And
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

                                 CRM 3775 of 2021

                      Debasish Sengupta @ Debashish Sengupta
                                       -Vs-
                             The State of West Bengal.


For the Petitioner:              Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr. Adv.,
                                 Mr. Milan Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.,
                                 Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Adv ,
                                 Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Adv.,
                                 Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.,
                                 Mr. Madhumita Basak, Adv.

For the State:                   Mr. Bivas Chatterjee, Adv.,
                                 Mr. Anushree Mondal, Adv.

Heard on:                        16.09.2021
Judgment on:                     24.09.2021

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J. : -


1.

This is a case under Section 354 (B)/376(2)(f)(n)/ 385 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present petitioner was appointed as

private tutor for the victim (daughter of de facto complainant) in the year

2013 and in the month of September 2018 the petitioner taking advantage

of the absence of the family members took obscene photographs of the

victim and blackmailed her. Further, in December 2018, he also took

obscene pictures and threatened to circulate the same and in August 2019

the petitioner molested the victim and had forceful sexual intercourse,

causing pain to the private parts of the victim. On such basis the present

case was initiated.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was appointed as a private tutor for the victim lady for the

subject of anatomy art and there was consensual relationship between the

petitioner and the victim lady. He further submitted that the petitioner and

his family members were humiliated and threatened in relation to which

the petitioner preferred a writ application before the Hon'ble Court

regarding inaction of the police being WPA 8620 of 2020 and in counter-

blast to the same this case has been initiated falsely. Moreover, he

submitted that the anticipatory bail application of this petitioner was

rejected by this Court in CRM no.11170 of 2020 which was also challenged

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri) 1220 of 2021 which was also

turned down and subsequent thereto the petitioner voluntarily surrendered

before Learned ACJM Biddhannagar on 19.02.2021. The petitioner has time

and again cooperated with the Investigating Agency and has no prior

criminal antecedents. The passport of the petitioner was also seized by the

Investigating Agency and therefore the possibility of his abscondence or

evading the process of law is ruled out. Furthermore, charge-sheet has

already being submitted after completion of investigation and the petitioner

is languishing in custody for the last 208 days. In view of his above

submission learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner

may be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of State submitted that as per the

statement of the victim recorded under Section 164CrPC as well as 161

CrPC there are substantial allegations against the petitioner of his

involvement in the alleged offence of taking obscene photographs of the

victim lady and thereafter blackmailing her on the score of putting those

obscene photographs on social media and also having forceful sexual

intercourse with her. As such, considering the nature and gravity of the

alleged offence, the bail prayer should be rejected.

5. We have heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and perused the

material in the case diary.

6. It appears from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161/164

of the CrPC and the statements of other witnesses that the petitioner was

appointed as a drawing tutor for the victim in the year 2013. The alleged

offence as per prosecution and the statements of witnesses started in the

year 2018. The victim in her statement stated that the obscene photographs

were taken in the mobile phone on September 2018 but when she tried to

raise hue and cry the petitioner resisted her. But there are no such

statements that the said fact was reported subsequent thereto on the force

been removed. After such incident, the petitioner was allowed to continue

taking tuition classes of the victim. Again in December, 2018 similar

incident of sexual assault took place but that was also not reported. The

victim also in her statement stated that in 2019 she was subjected to

forceful intercourse and she sustained pain. However, there are no such

medical documents pertaining to the said period. The medical report

available in the case diary does not reveal of any injury. The complaint has

been lodged after a period of more than two years. Thus primarily it

appears that the relationship was consensual. Moreover, both the victim

and the petitioner were majors at the time of the incident. Further, after

completion of investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted in the

case and the petitioner is languishing in custody for the last 208 days and

as such further custodial interrogation of this petitioner may not be

required. On an overall assessment of the material available and the extent

of complicity of the petitioner and also considering the period of detention,

we are of the view that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

7. However, it is made clear that the aforesaid observations strictly relate to

the consideration of this bail application of the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner Debasish Sengupta @ Debashish Sengupta may

find bail of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, one of which must

be local, subject to satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bidhannagar and the petitioner shall report to the officer-in-charge,

Bidhannagar (North) Police station once every fortnight until further

orders. Further the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of

Bidhannagar (North) Police station save and except for attending court and

the police station.

9. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing

until further orders and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper

with evidence in any manner whatsoever.

10. In the event the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions

stipulated above without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at

liberty to cancel the petitioner's bail in accordance with law without

further reference to this Court.

11. The CRM no. 3775 of 2021 is accordingly allowed, with the aforesaid

observations.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)

I agree

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)