WEST BENGAL: Today, the Supreme Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man connected to a case lodged for alleged offenses, including under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Apex Court said it does not tolerate such an activity where the offensive photograph of a young girl is taken before threatening her. The Court observed that the allegations against the man are very serious and as of today, the victim’s statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is against him.
The court said – “You do such an activity, we don’t tolerate. In our society, we don’t take a photograph of a young girl and then threaten,”
A Bench headed by Justices M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose was hearing a petition against the May 2022 order of the Calcutta High Court, which had rejected the man’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in the case lodged in West Bengal.
The case was filed in October 2021, for the alleged offenses, including that of cheating, and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012.
The council informed the Court that there is no allegation against the man claiming that he has not cooperated in the investigation. The advocate further argued that the man is ready to cooperate in every way and is ready to abide by any condition that the apex court may impose upon him.
“Sorry. Rejected,” the bench orally said.
Earlier also, the Accused approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, claiming that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
The counsel appearing for the state had argued before the High Court that the de-facto complainant alleges wrongdoings to her while she was a minor. There is a statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the CrPC before a magistrate to such an effect.
“There is a statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are money transactions between the victim, the de-facto complainant on one part, and the petitioner,” the high court had noted in its order.
“Considering the entirety of the materials in the case diary, we are unable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner,” it had said.
DOWNLOAD OUR FREE LEGAL MAGAZINE – LAW MANTHAN 1ST EDITION