The court held that granting pre-arrest bail is inappropriate where there is a strong prima facie case, and where custodial interrogation is necessary to protect the integrity of the investigation.

JUDGMENT

[1] Apprehending arrest in West Agartala P.S Case No.2020WAG206 under Sections 377 /506 IPC and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act FIR named accused Indrajit Ghosh has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C hereunder) seeking release on pre arrest bail.

[2] The background facts of the case are as under:

The informant father of the victim (named withheld) lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge of the Ramnagar Police Outpost alleging, inter alia, that the accused who is a private tutor of his nine years old son committed sexual assault on his son by inserting his penis into the anus of his son. At the time of committing such offence the accused private tutor of his son gagged him so as to prevent him from shouting. After committing the offence the accused warned the son of the informant that in case the incidence was divulged by him to anybody, his parents would be killed and he would be handed over to police. After the occurrence symptoms of illness appeared. When his father asked him as to what happened to him, initially he was reluctant to say anything. Later, he told his mother that he was feeling pain in his anus. He was then taken to IGM Hospital for treatment on 18.11.2020 where he divulged the entire incidence and by seeing the injury doctors also confirmed the veracity of the said incidence.

[3] Based on the said FIR of the father of the informant, West Agartala P.S case No.2020WAG206 dated 30.11.2020 under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and the case was taken up for investigation.

[4] Apprehending arrest in the case the accused approached the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.3) for pre arrest bail by filing an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 09.12.2020 on merit. Thereafter, the accused moved similar application before this Court which was rejected by this Court vide order 26.02.2021. Accused has again moved similar application before this Court for his release on pre arrest bail.

[5] Heard Mr. Bhaskar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

[6] Mr. Bhaskar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accused has been falsely implicated in the case because he had once beaten his victim student for some wrongs committed by him. Thereafter, aggrieved parents lodged a false case against the petitioner. Further submission of Mr. Deb is that even though it was stated in the FIR that victim was suffering from pain in his rectum and he was taken to IGM hospital for treatment and the doctors confirmed the commission of the offence, there is no medical report to support this fact. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel, the accused is a teacher by profession and his arrest and detention would thin his career and life. Learned counsel, therefore, urges the court for release of the accused on pre arrest bail.

[7] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned P.P on the other hand vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the statement of the victim recorded in Court Under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C demonstrates that victim was sexually assaulted by his accused teacher on several times. Mr. Datta, also refers to the police statements of the parents of the victim as well as some of the neighbours of the victim who has also supported such allegations.

[8] Having referred to the statement of the Medical Officer who examined the victim at the hospital, Mr. Datta, submits that as stated by the Medical Officer, victim was taken to hospital 18 days afte