Shri.Ravi Barwa v. The State And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(DB)/1/2026 CRA(DB)/7/2026 IA No.CRAN/1/2026 Shri Ravi Barwa Vs.

The State Mr. D. Ilango ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State April 17, 2026 [SR] Item No.6,7 Re: CRAN/1/2026 (Condonation of delay) 1.

In view of sufficient explanation for the delay in filing of an appeal having been made out, CRAN/1/2026 is allowed, thereby condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 2.

CRAN/1/2026 is disposed of.

Re: CRA(DB)/7/2026 (Appeal) 3.

The appeal is admitted to be heard on the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal.

4.

Issue usual notice on the respondent No.2.

5.

Service on the respondent no.1/State is dispensed with in view of the appearance of the State through learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

Trial Court Records be called for.

7.

Requisite number of paper books be prepared by the department within a period of four weeks from date of arrival of the Trial Court Records.

Re: CRM(DB)/1/2026 ( Application for bail) 8.

Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the application for suspension of sentence/bail, argues that there is several discrepancies in the impugned judgement. Learned counsel points out that the victim girl stated that 2-3 days after the alleged incident which took place in the second week or March, 2023, her "period resumed".

9.

Thereafter, she had severe pain in her abdomen and her family members took her to the hospital allegedly on July 3, 2023. The victim girl further stated in her evidence that upon such examination in the hospital, her pregnancy was discovered when the fetus was aborted.

10.

It is argued that if the victim girl's statements are taken on face value, after resumption of her menstrual cycle in the month of March 2023 itself, if she was found to be pregnant in July, 2023, i.e. four months thereafter, without there being any allegation of interaction between the victim girl and the appellant in between, the appellant could not be indicted of the alleged offence. 11.

Secondly, learned counsel submits that the victim girl in her cross examination categorically admitted that the appellant, (her brother-in-law) is residing separately with his wife (sister of the victim) for the last 8-9 years. It is insinuated by learned counsel for the appellant that such acrimony between the families of the parties led to the allegation made against the appellant. 12.

It is further pointed out that the DNA test could not identify the appellant as the person was responsible for the pregnancy of the victim girl.

13.

Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the prayer for bail and relies on Section 29 of the POCSO Act to argue that it is precisely such nature of offence as in the present case that the said act had been framed. Learned counsel argues that the alleged consent of the victim girl cannot be taken to be a mitigating factor, since the consent by a minor is not consent in the eye of law at all. 14.

Even otherwise, it is submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence, the prayer for suspension of sentence/ bail ought to be refused.

15.

Despite the rigors of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, it is established that the foundational facts to give rise to such presumption are to be borne out from the evidence on record. Although the Court is aware that the appellant has already been convicted by the competent jurisdictional Court, still, from the submission made by the appellant/petitioner as indicated above, we find sufficient chinks in the prosecution's armour to give the benefit of suspension of sentence/bail to the appellant. 16.

Prima facie, we find discrepancies insofar as the victim girl admitted that her menstrual cycle resumes 2-3 days after the alleged offence in the month of March, 2023 whereas she was taken to the hospital, where she was found to be pregnant, only in the month of July, 2023 without any allegation of interaction between the victim and the appellant in between. 17.

Secondly, the possibility of vendetta cannot be ruled out altogether, in view of the admission in the cross examination of the victim girl has acrimony between her sister and her husband, the appellant.

18.

In such view of the matter, and also in view of the fact that the DNA test could not conclusively pinpoint the offence to be apparent, since the DNA profile from one sample could be generated and regarding the other, the same could not be recovered, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has a fair chance of success in the appeal, at least at the prima facie level. 19.

That apart, the appellant is already in custody for almost three years and since the appeal is pending, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in detaining the appellant further behind the bars subject, of course, to stringent conditions being imposed on the appellant.

20.

Accordingly CRM (DB)/1/2026 is allowed on contest, thereby granting bail/suspending the sentence, to the appellant subject to the appellant furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mayabunder . As further condition of bail, the appellant shall not, in any manner, make any attempt whatsoever to establish contact with and/or intimidate or influence and/or get in touch with the victim girl or her immediate family in any manner whatsoever during the pendency of the appeal. In addition, the appellant shall also make himself available if and as and when so required by this Court during the hearing of the appeal. The appellant shall personally report once every week before the local police station i.e. the PS Mayabunder also during the pendency of the appeal.

21.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. ) (Smita Das De, J.)