Shri.Sonu Tigga v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (DB)/5/2025 with CRA (DB)/10/2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed on 18.12.2025 in connection with appeal CRA(DB)/10/2025 pending before the High Court. And In the matter of Shri. Sonu Tigga Vs The State and another Mr. D.Ilango Mr. S. Vinod Krishnan ... for the petitioner Mr. S.C.Mishra ... for the State (on virtual mode) Ms. Shipra Mondal ... for the victim December 22, 2025 [AKB] Item No.3 1.

The convict/appellant herein has prayed for bail in appeal during its pendency.

2.

It is the case of the appellant that on completion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted as follows :- "suffer rigorous imprisonment of 20 (Twenty) years with the fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand), and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a term of 02 months for the offence punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act. In case the convict fails to pay the fine amount, the sentence of imprisonment will run one after the other. The fine amount, if realized, be handed over to the mother of the survivor VG for the rehabilitation of her victim daughter under section 357 Cr.P.C. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the convict during the investigation and as well as during the trial will be set off." 3.

The victim on being served is being duly represented by her counsel.

4.

Following relevant facts are evident from the materials on record including the judgment and order of conviction.

i) The victim's case is that she had developed a friendship with the appellant about 21⁄2 years prior to date of incident i.e. 20.03.2023 and there was admittedly a love affair between the parties. In course of the love affair the petitioner got pregnant and started residing with the accused in his house. (Both the parties belong to the scheduled tribe caste).

ii) On the date of registration of the case i.e.

20.03.2023, due to ill health, the victim had gone to the PHC, Garacharma where the Doctor after examining her opined that she was seven to eight months pregnant and as the victim was a minor and the appellant was responsible for her pregnancy, the case was initiated on the basis of the statement of the victim girl being recorded.

iii) The age of the victim at the time of the alleged commission of offence, was aged about 171⁄2 years (Date of Birth being 10.07.2005). The victim girl is present in Court with her child and submits that the convict and she are married to each other and at present she aged above 18 years (almost 20 years) and as such she has taken a decision to lead a family life with the appellant. iv) It is further stated by the victim, considering the fact that the appellant has been detained in the

correctional home, the victim is facing severe hardship and inconvenience with her baby.

v) It is further submitted that the appellant all along during trial has remained on bail and not misused the same.

5.

Considering that the appeal has been admitted, keeping in mind the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases regarding registration of POCSO cases relating to adolescent love affairs and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel vs. State of U.P. and others, Criminal Appeal No. 001005/2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 492/2025 dated 28.02.2025, wherein it appears that the facts and circumstances of the present case is very similar to the one in Mahesh Mukund Patel (supra) the Court held:- "8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned order.

Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have been forced to come to this Court."

6.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 28.02.2025 in similar circumstances where the victim girl was aged more than 17 years and married to the accused and on the finding that there was an adolescent love affair between the parties, was pleased to quash the proceeding before it, which included offence under the POCSO Act.

7.

Considering the facts as noted above and the fact that there is no submission regarding misuse of bail by the appellant herein, the appellant is granted bail of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with two registered sureties of Rs.2500/- each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North and Middle Andaman District, Mayabunder.

8.

The CRM (DB)/5/2025 stands disposed of as allowed along with all connected application, if any. 9.

Period of sentence be suspended and realization of fine stayed till disposal of the appeal.

10.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]