Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

Supreme Court has granted bail to a 75-year-old lawyer held guilty in April this year in a 40-year-old case relating to the committing offences of rape and murder of a young girl.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, however, has asked the Calcutta High Court to put stringent conditions upon the accused-appellant and fix a time schedule to decide his appeal.

Top Court had set aside the High Court's order of May 17, 2023, declining bail to appellant Banamali Choudhury alias Banamali Chaudhury.

"The occurrence is of the year 1983 which is forty years old now. There are reasons and reasons why the trial was delayed. The trial came to an end with the order of conviction of the appellant on 21st April, 2023. The appellant was throughout on bail. The present age of the appellant is about 75 years," the bench noted.

Court has further, considering the delay in disposal of the trial, the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1983 and the present age of the appellant, said that accused deserves to be enlarged on bail, pending the final disposal of the appeal before the High Court on appropriate stringent terms and conditions. 

Upon being informed that the appellant is a member of the Bar, the bench said, he was expected to ensure that the order of this Court is scrupulously implemented and the appeal is disposed of expeditiously. 

"Therefore, we direct that the appellant shall not seek adjournments on any unreasonable grounds and shall cooperate with the High Court for early disposal of the appeal," the order adds.

In its order on May 17, the High Court's division bench had declined to suspend sentence of the appellant in view of the gravity of the offence. It had also noted the instant that the case involved brutal rape and murder of a girl. She was found strangulated in a room and the accused was her maternal uncle. 

"The appellant had also refused to give his semen when requested by the investigating agency. Such conduct led the trial court to draw an adverse inference against him. Right against self-incrimination does not extend to refusal of bodily fluids during investigation as held in State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962). Under such circumstances, the stance of the trial judge cannot be said to be unfounded. Other evidence on record rules out the possibility of access of any other male person to the victim. Conviction cannot be said to be perverse", the High Court had said.