CHITTA RANJAN PAL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application under Sec. 483 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for releasing of the accused person-in-custody on bail in connection with West Agartala, Women P.S. case No.021 of 2025 corresponding to SPL(POCSO) 33 of 2025 under Sec. 65(2)/351(3) of BNS, 2023 read with Sec. 6 of POCSO Act. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Rathor appearing on behalf of the applicant and also heard Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R. Saha on behalf of the State-respondent. As ordered earlier, we have received the record from the Learned Trial Court and Learned Addl. P.P. had also produced the case diary.

(2.) Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. Rathor first of all drawn the attention of the Court that earlier on behalf of the accused-in-custody, a bail petition was moved to this Court and this Court by order dtd. 3/11/2025 rejected the bail application of the accused-in-custody on the ground that the evidence of the victim and her parents were not recorded. Learned Counsel further submitted that the alleged incident took place on 7/5/2025 but the FIR was laid on 19/5/2025 after a considerable delay of 12 days but in this regard nothing has been explained by the informant in the FIR. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the applicant that by this time the evidence of victim and her parents have been recorded and medical evidence on record is also contrary to the prosecution case. It was further submitted that after the alleged occurrence the victim attended in some other ceremonies. It may so happen that the incident took place in some other place but the present accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It was also submitted that the accused is a boy of tender age, so, considering the long period of his incarceration in jail, he may be released on bail in any condition. It was also submitted that the accused-in-custody has come of a poor family and his family had a very coordinate relation with the family of the victim. But it is surprising as to why he has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned Counsel also made alternative submission that even if the prosecution story is found to be correct, but in that case no such alleged pipe which according to the victim was entered into her vagina was seized by the I.O. in course of investigation. So, in absence of seizure of such alamat the prosecution story seems to be doubtful. So, in summing up, Learned Counsel urged for releasing the accused on bail in any condition.

(3.) On the other hand, Learned Addl. P.P. strongly opposed the submission made by Learned Counsel for the accused-in-custody and submitted that from the evidence of the victim and her parents, it is clear that there was clear penetration of some substance by the accused to the vagina of the victim. Situated thus, considering the materials on record, there is no scope to release the accused on bail in any condition at this stage and urged for dismissal of this bail application. Considered.