STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SANGITA SAHU @ SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-State of West Bengal has preferred the application for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party-accused by the learned Judge, Special Court, Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore and In-charge Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, in connection with Bishnupur P.S. Case No.868 of 2017 dated 22.9.2017 under sections 363/366/370/370A/372/373/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), R/W sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, [hereinafter referred to as I.T.(P) Act], sections 4/6/17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and section 81 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-State of West Bengal submitted that the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail mechanically to the opposite party-accused who is the owner of the hotel where immoral activities were being carried on. It is also submitted that there are ample materials on record including the statements of victims recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prima facie disclosing the involvement of the opposite party-accused in sexually exploiting them for gain. It is further submitted that the order granting pre-arrest bail and the consequential order of regular bail suffers from clear non-application of mind as to the gravity of the offence which discloses an organised racket for exploitation of minor girls and others for sex. Hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite party-accused submitted that the opposite party-accused is a lady and is suffering from various ailments. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge considered her critical health condition as well as the fact that she was wholly unaware of the nature of activities carried on in the premises while granting pre-arrest bail. It is also brought to our notice that the statements of the so-called victims were belatedly recorded and none of the victims whose statements were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure immediately after the occurrence has implicated the opposite party-accused in the alleged crime.