[ad_1]
Noting the “very serious allegations,” the top court stated that it would not tolerate the activity which the man is accused of carrying out, though he claimed he was falsely implicated.
Noting the “very serious allegations,” the top court stated that it would not tolerate the activity which the man is accused of carrying out, though he claimed he was falsely implicated.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man connected to a case lodged for alleged offences, including under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, saying it does not tolerate such an activity where the offensive photograph of a young girl is taken before threatening her.
The apex 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.
A vacation bench of 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 lodged in October last year for the alleged offences, including that of cheating, and criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012.
“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,” the top court observed.
The counsel appearing for the man told the bench that he had joined the investigation and is cooperating in the probe.
“How can you take a nude photograph and then threaten?,” the top court said, adding, “As on today, the 164 (of CrPC) statement is against you. There are very serious allegations.”
The counsel said 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.
The man had earlier 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.
The lawyer appearing for the de-facto complainant had contended before the high court that the petitioner was in a relationship with the victim while she was a minor and took offensive photos and videos of her
“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.
[ad_2]
Source link
