Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court has mandated a comprehensive investigation into the police's handling of a sexual assault case initiated by the wife of an IAS officer, while simultaneously revoking the bail of the accused.

The order was delivered by Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, who sharply criticised the handling of the case, noting serious deficiencies in the actions of the police. The court ruled that the bail application for offences under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cannot proceed without providing an opportunity for the victim to be heard.

The court noted : “the petitioner has the right to be apprised of all developments in the case, including the grant of anticipatory bail. Despite this, the petitioner was neither informed of the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, nor afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard during the bail proceedings. It is crucial to highlight that even Section 483(2) of the BNSS, 2023 mandates that the informant be notified, a provision which the respondent authorities failed to adhere to.”

The petitioner, a managerial professional, reported two separate incidents of sexual assault allegedly committed by the accused on July 14 and 15, 2024, at her residence. Despite the severity of the allegations, the police registered the case under less severe provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, rather than the more serious charges warranted by the situation. On July 15, the petitioner approached the Lake Police Station to file a First Information Report (FIR). However, she reported experiencing intimidation from the family of the accused, who allegedly pressured her to withdraw her complaint while at the police station. Alarmingly, no investigation was conducted on the CCTV footage from the police station during this period, despite her explicit request. The following day, the accused was granted bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, based on a "nil" checklist from the investigating officer, which lacked substantial grounds for the accused’s arrest.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Antarikhya Basu, highlighted several procedural lapses and misconduct by the police. It was asserted that the original complaint had been tampered with by police personnel, who also failed to follow mandated procedures for recording a woman’s statement. The petitioner contended that her medical examination was conducted only at her own initiative, and critical evidence, including the CCTV footage, was not preserved.

The court noted the extraordinary nature of the case, emphasising the distress endured by the petitioner. The court condemned the police's handling of the investigation and criticised the police for failing to adhere to procedures designed to protect victims of sexual crimes, stating: “The petitioner is clearly a victim of continuous torture and oppression. The investigation officer never bothered to inform the victim of the application being moved by the accused, further exacerbating the victim’s distress. Moreover, the officers failed to seize the CCTV footage of Lake Police Station, where both the officers and family members of the accused coerced the petitioner to withdraw the complaint. The charges under Sections 62 and 64 of the BNS, 2023 were not considered by the Sessions Judge, Alipore. Therefore, the respondent no.9 [accused] cannot be allowed to enjoy any liberty, as the accused continues to pose a threat to the petitioner.”

In light of these observations, the court instructed the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, to take disciplinary action against the officers involved for their procedural lapses and failure to uphold the rights of the victim. The case has also been transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Police for Women's Affairs for further investigation.

The court concluded by revoking the bail of the accused, stating that the mishandling of evidence and the intimidation of the petitioner necessitated urgent judicial intervention to ensure justice.

 

Cause Title: X vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [WPA 18752 of 2024]

Representation : Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee (for the petitioner) and Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, SSC, Ms. Tarak Karan (for the State).