In Re: Bontala Shankar vs State Of M.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 4394 Cal

131 20.07.

       2023                          CRA (SB) 98 of 2023
 Ct                                         With
237                                 IA NO: CRAN 1 of 2023

rup
                     In Re: Bontala Shankar            ... Appellant/Petitioner


                     Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, Sr. Adv.
                     Mr. Anand Bhandari,
                     Mrs. Sonali Das,
                     Ms. Shalini Saha              .... For the Appellant.

                     Mr. Joydip Roy,
                     Mr. Amanul Islam
                                                     ..... For the State.


                                 In Re: IA NO: CRAN 1 of 2023

I am dealing with an application for bail in respect of

appellant/accused in a case under the POCSO Act, 2012.

The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to

suffer seven years imprisonment.

Mr. Y. J. Dastoor, learned senior advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant has drawn my attention to the witnesses

examined in this case and submitted that the appellant was

falsely implicated in this case.

Mr. Dastoor further submitted that accused was arrested

from the day when the complaint was lodged on 20.02.2016 and

he was enlarged on bail just after four months i.e. on 3 rd June,

2016 by the learned Judge, Special Court, North 24 Parganas.

Mr. Dastoor has drawn my attention to the evidence on

record and referred to contradiction among the witnesses and

also inordinate delay in lodging FIR. Mr. Dostoor in support of

his contention relied on a case of Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P

reported in 2001 C CR LR (SC) 6 and in the case of Bhagwam

Rama Shidne Gosai & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in

1999 C Cr. CR (SC) 247.

Mr. Joydip Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of

the State has submitted that victim was examined almost after

five months and therefore, nothing was found after medical

examination.

I have gone through the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions.

After careful perusal of the judgment in terms of

submission advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the

fact that appellant/accused remained on bail throughout the

trial, I find it justified to suspend the sentence till the disposal of

the appeal and the accused to be enlarged on bail furnishing

bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5000/- each, to the

satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat,

North 24 Parganas.

Accordingly CRAN 1 of 2023 stands disposed of.

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)