IMPORTANT POINT
The purpose of bail is to secure the accused's attendance at trial, and bail should not be withheld as a punishment.

JUDGMENT

1. Matter taken up via video conferencing.

2. This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C r/w Section 31 of the POCSO Act for grant of bail to the accused person Shri Wanborlang Nongrum. This application has been preferred by the applicant herein who is the brother of the said accused person.

3. The applicant has stated that an FIR dated 02.01.2021 was lodged by the complainant Smti. Wandamon Sari alleging that the accused person has sexually assaulted her minor daughter on 01.01.2021 at around 7:00 PM at Mawrynkneng Parish. On the strength of the said FIR, a case being numbered as Mawrynkneng P.S Case No. 01(01)2021 u/s 5(1)/6 POCSO Act was registered and the accused person was arrested on 02.01.2021 and is still in judicial custody till date.

4. It is also stated that the investigation has been completed and the I/O has accordingly filed the charge sheet on 29.03.2021 and has come to the conclusion that during the course of investigation, a prima facie case u/s 5(1)/6 POCSO Act is found well established against the accused person and he is sent to stand trial before the court.

5. Heard Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that the main thrust of the argument on behalf of the accused is that he was denied the opportunity to be granted default bail as the records would show that the accused was arrested on 02.01.2021 and was in judicial custody since then. However, the I/O who by then has completed the investigation has prepared the charge sheet, but the same was placed before the Court only on the 09.04.2021 which is beyond the mandatory period of 90(ninety) days. However, on the 09.04.2021 though there was no prayer for remand, the accused was remanded to further custody.

6. Mr. Gautam has also cited the case of M. Ravindran v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: (2021) 2 SCC 485 at paragraph 18.10 and has submitted that at the relevant period, the I/O has failed to file the charge sheet before the Court before the statutory period, however the fact that the accused was entitled to default bail was never informed to the him either by the Court or even by his erstwhile counsel and being ignorant of this fact, the accused was deprived of being given the opportunity to provide bail.

7. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the alleged incident happened on New Year’s day and the accused being only 22 years while the alleged victim is 16 years, the fact that the accused has been in custody for more than 8(eight) months, his continued pre-trial detention would only come in the way of his ability to present his defence freely. It is therefore prayed that if enlarged on bail, strict conditions may be imposed which will be abided by the accused.

8. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. Sr. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State Respondent has submitted that since the case involving the accused has already been charge sheeted, there being no fresh circumstances, therefore bail at this stage may not be allowed. It is also submitted that this Court may peruse the case records, and if deemed fit and proper, necessary orders may be passed in this regard.

9. Having heard the learned counsels, what is first required is to answer to the first limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, who has pointed out that the accused ought to have been released on bail on the principle of default bail as is statutorily prescribed in Section 167(1)(2)(a)(i)(ii) Cr.P.C. However, the learned counsel has cast aspersion on the role of the Magistrate and the then counsel of the accused who, according to him has not informed the accused when this indefeasible right has accrued to him, as a result of which he was deprived of exercising such right at the relevant period. The case of M. Ravindran (supra) cited by the learned counsel, particularly at paragraph 18.10 was aimed to project this fact. In the said paragraph, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed