Monirul Sekh @ Pappu v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

19.10.2023.

23.

Ct.No.28 As (Rejected) C.R.M. (DB) 4120 of 2023 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Basanti P. S. Case No.223 of 2012 dated 03.04.2012 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code and charge sheet submitted under Sections 342/343/344/346/363/ 368/370/370A/372/120B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently charge sheet and added Sections 342/343/344/346/368/370/370A/120B/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

In the matter of : Monirul Sekh @ Pappu.

... Petitioner.

Mr. Gobinda Chandra Baidya.

...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, ld. A.P.P., Mrs. Sonali Das.

...for the State.

Mr. Arnab Nandi.

....for the de-facto complainant.

1.

Petitioner submits he is in custody for three years. Minor victim has been examined. There is little possibility of trial concluding in the near future. He prays for bail. 2.

Learned Advocate for the State opposes the bail prayer. He submits the case involves interstate trafficking of a minor for sexual exploitation. She opposes the bail prayer.

3.

Learned Advocate for the de-facto complainant submits the minor was trafficked to Mumbai and sexually exploited for five years.

Initially investigation was conducted by local agency. Subsequently investigation was

transferred to a specialized agency and the victim was recovered. Charge sheet was filed and petitioner has been arrested.

4.

We have considered the materials on record.

Petitioner is involved in interstate trafficking of minor for sexual exploitation. Evidence of the minor has implicated the petitioner. Offences are very grave and have far reaching social ramifications. Possibility of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail is high.

5.

Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

7.

In view of period detention suffered by the petitioner, we direct the Trial Court to conduct the trial with utmost expedition and conclude the same at an early date preferably within one year from the next date fixed for recording evidence without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

8.

Parties shall co-operate with the Trial Court and communicate the order for due compliance.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)