The Calcutta High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously in a POCSO case and observed that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. The High Court further clarified that this is in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to all citizens of India.

The accused had approached the High Court with a revision application preferred against an order of the Special Court in a case registered under Sections 376/306 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) said, “Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the ‘right to life and personal liberty’ to every individual and no one should be deprived of it except according to the procedure established by law. It guarantees the fundamental right to live with human dignity and personal liberty.”

Advocate Kallol Kr. Basu represented the Petitioner while APP Debasish Roy represented the State.

The Trial Court, in its order, held that the prima facie commission of offence U/s 302 of IPC was made out which is a higher section than with which the accused had been charged and facing trial. Invoking the liberty granted by the Apex Court in Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand (2019), the Bench had called upon the accused to appear and answer as to why his earlier bail was not liable for cancellation in terms of the authority.

The facts of the case suggested that in the present case the initial section under which the accused was charged was Section 306 Indian Penal Code. The accused had been granted bail. The trial had commenced and there was no prima facie violation of conditions of bail. The reason for such consideration being that there was a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC.

The Bench noted that there was no observation that the accused had misused his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, interfered with the course of trial, attempted to tamper with evidence or witnesses, threatened witnesses or indulged in similar activities which would hamper smooth conduct of trial. There was also no likelihood of his fleeing to another country.

There was also no observation made which would imply that the accused attempted to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency or attempted to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. He had also not violated the conditions of bail granted.

“Bail is a Rule and Jail is an exception. This is in line with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to all citizens of India”, the Bench said.

It was further made clear that as per the fundamental principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a person is assumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Therefore, no one shall be deprived of personal liberty unless specified by a fair and just procedure.

“Bail is an essential element of any criminal justice system, as it guarantees the right to a fair trial for the accused. Bail is a mechanism that secures liberty to the accused without providing any unjustified benefit to them”, it held.

Thus, allowing the revision, the Bench set aside the order of the Special Court and directed the Trial Judge to proceed expeditiously with the trial.

Cause Title: Shyamchand Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. (Case No.- CRR 3593 of 2023)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Kallol Kr. Basu, Debapriya Samanta, Jannat Ul Firdous, Suhotro Palit

State: APP Debasish Roy, Advocate Bibaswan Bhattacharya

Click here to read/download Order