NARAYAN MAJUMDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the de facto complainant-petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the Opposite Party No.2 by order dated 8th June, 2016 in G.R. Case No.1054 of 2016 arising out of New Town Police Station Case No.253 dated 15.05.2016.

(2.) Counsel for the de facto complainant submits that the offence levelled against the Opposite Party no.2 is under Section 376 (2) (f) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The said two Sections were not read by the court below properly. The age of the minor girl was also not considered by the court below, and bail has been granted without considering the materials in the Case Diary properly. Therefore, the order dated 8th June, 2016 has been rendered perverse per se and is liable to be cancelled.

(3.) Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submits that the anticipatory bail was granted to the Opposite Party No.2 on 8th June, 2016 and no post-bail conduct can be alleged against the Opposite Party no.2. The offence under Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C. does not lie as both the Opposite Party No.2 and the father of the victim girl are tenants. The said order dated 8th June, 2016 was passed only on consideration of the materials in the Case Diary which was produced before the court below. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said order is either perverse or without application of mind.