The Supreme Court has granted bail to a 75-year-old lawyer who was found guilty earlier this year in a case dating back 40 years. The case involves charges of rape and murder of a young girl.
A division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, has directed Calcutta High Court to impose strict conditions on the accused-appellant and establish a specific timetable for the resolution of 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.
The court has also taken into account the prolonged trial proceedings, the fact that the incident dates back to 1983, and the current age of the appellant. In light of these factors, the court has determined that the accused should be granted bail while awaiting the final resolution of the appeal in the High Court, subject to the imposition of appropriate and strict terms and conditions.
"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.
Earlier, in May, 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.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy