Sandip Dey @ Suman v. State Of West Bengal

Item 7 C.R.M. 7051 of 2020 IA No. CRAN 1 of 2020 Court 16 (Via Video Conference) sg 28-09-2020 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 1124 dated 29.12.2018 under sections 376/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code with Sect4ions 4/6/8 of POCSO Act. Sandip Dey @ Suman

Versus

State of West Bengal Mr. Phiroz Educl Ji, Adv.

Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Rajib Ghosh, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.

Ms. Baisali Basu, Adv.

...for the State.

The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within one month of resumption of normal functioning of the Court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.

Accordingly, CRAN 1 of 2020 is disposed of.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has candidly submitted that the petitioner is renewing his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected. Considering the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence, we are not inclined to allow this application for bail. We have been informed that the charges have been framed by the learned trial court. Under such circumstances, we request the learned Special Judge (POCSO), 1st Court, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas to expedite the trial keeping in view the statutory mandate for the expeditious disposal of the trial under 35 of the POCSO Act.

The application for bail is rejected.

(Jay Sengupta, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)