Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 423 (GAU)

State of Nagaland v. Sandeep Jain

2021-06-28

S.HUKATO SWU

body2021
JUDGMENT : S. HUKATO SWU, J. 1. The present criminal petition is moved by the State against the order dated 29-05-2021 passed in connection with I.A. Criminal No. 14/2021 in Dimapur Women Case No. 720/2021 corresponding to G.R. No. 198/2021 under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act passed by the Special Judge FTSC Dimapur granting interim bail to the accused till 29-06-2021. 2. The facts of the matter is that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge Women Police Station Dimapur, Nagaland by Mrs. Kitoholi resident of Notun Bosti A.O. Khel House No. 123 on 07-04-2021 alleging that her daughter who is aged 4 years old studying in Euro International School at Midland Dimapur started crying and screaming to avoid going to school repeatedly for two days. When she inquired as to why she was not willing to go to school, the girl child narrated that after the class, she was taken upstairs by her Principal wearing mask and touched all over her body and also inserted his finger into her private parts. She even had nightmare at night saying she won’t go to school in her dream. On 7th of April, she took her child and went to talk to school authority and the authority said nothing of such nature has happened before. The Principal was supposed to come and meet her but all of a sudden they informed her that he is about to go out of station. The School Coordinator said there is no male inside the school except the Principal. They said that there is no chance of such thing happening. So the complainant was not satisfied with the way they deal with serious child abuses and requested the Police to look into the matter and arrest the culprit. 3. The accused Sandeep K. Jain was arrested on 07-04-2021. On 03-05-2021, a petition bearing I.A. Criminal No. 14/2021 was filed under Section 439 Cr PC for the release of accused Sandeep K. Jain and the learned Special Judge fixed 07-05-2021 for hearing of the bail application and directed the I.O. to submit investigation report along with the CD. Thereafter, by an order dated 29-05-2021, the learned Special Judge POCSO passed interim order granting bail to the accused till 29-06-2021. The bail was considered on the ground that:- (1) Judicial remand of the accused was granted till 21-05-2021 for completion of the investigation. Thereafter, by an order dated 29-05-2021, the learned Special Judge POCSO passed interim order granting bail to the accused till 29-06-2021. The bail was considered on the ground that:- (1) Judicial remand of the accused was granted till 21-05-2021 for completion of the investigation. After this remand order, there is no prayer submitted by the investigation for further judicial remand. Thereby meaning that the accused was under illegal detention effective from 21-05-2021. (2) The second ground which was considered by the learned Special Judge was on medical ground which suggested that the accused was suffering from grade-II internal hemorrhoids with RCS, chronic hepatitis and gastric ulcer, internal bleeding with annul fissure and chronic inflation in liver. The learned Special Judge further observed that there is no report showing that the accused is being treated for his ailment inside the jail also it is observed that the medical facilities at jail is not adequate to treat the accused. With the above two grounds, the learned Special Judge granted ad-interim bail to the accused till 29-06-2021. 4. Aggrieved with the decision of the learned Special Judge, learned P.P. Ms. V. Suokhrie is before this Court for the State petitioner praying for cancellation of the interim order on the ground that the learned Special Judge has arbitrarily exercised the discretion of granting of bail under 439 Cr PC arbitrarily without considering the material records and therefore, she has challenged the decision of the learned Special Judge, POCSO. She prays that the order dated 29-05-2021 be set aside and quashed in the interest of justice. 5. Learned P.P. Ms. V. Suokhrie submits that the matter relates to serious offence of abuse of a girl child of four years who has been sexually assaulted by none other than the Principal of the School, an educationist. This fact alone deserves serious consideration by the Court to give justice to a child student of four year who now is even rebellious of going to school due to the action of the Principal. This fact alone deserves serious consideration by the Court to give justice to a child student of four year who now is even rebellious of going to school due to the action of the Principal. The learned P.P. while questioning the manner in which the bail was considered on medical ground has brought to the notice of this Court that when the bail application was presented on medical ground, the Court instead of resorting to referring the matter to medical board for proper assessment of the health condition of the accused, resorted to whimsically granting interim bail by an order dated 29-05-2021. This action of the learned Special Judge is questionable. Going by the records of the accused there is nothing reflected on record which suggests that the accused was having medical issues. There is no report whatsoever prior to filing of the bail application that the accused was suffering from any ailments either before the authority of the jail nor before the learned Magistrate nor the learned Principal District Judge nor before the Special Judge, POCSO. Under the circumstances, untested medical reports are not to be relied upon today as medical reports are easily available in the market. Even going by the basis of the latest medical report filed by the accused which culminated in ultra sound of the whole abdomen, the report is that the accused has:- (1) Grade-1 fatty liver (2) small echogenic lesion seen adherent to GB wall; adherent sludge/polyp. The above report filed by the accused was consulted with medical experts who has opined that Grade-1 fatty liver is disease which is not a serious disease requiring intensive medical treatment. The second impression is also not a severe nature of health condition requiring intensive medical treatment. It is only a sign of recovery from the sickness which is manageable. Therefore, the grounds given by the accused is not a ground to be considered for bail. The medical report filed is also varying from 2013 to 2020 and they are not reliable. During one and half months in the jail, the accused did not make any complaints either to the Magistrate or the Jail Authority therefore, moving of bail application on medical ground was only an afterthought process by the accused. There was absolutely no cogent grounds for the learned Special Judge to have considered the bail on medical grounds. 6. During one and half months in the jail, the accused did not make any complaints either to the Magistrate or the Jail Authority therefore, moving of bail application on medical ground was only an afterthought process by the accused. There was absolutely no cogent grounds for the learned Special Judge to have considered the bail on medical grounds. 6. The next reason for granting the bail is also equally questionable. Bail was considered on the ground that remand was not prayed for by the I.O. after 21-05-2021. However, the record shows that the I.O. had filed report before the Special Judge, FTSC, Dimapur, Nagaland through P.I. Court that the charge sheet has been submitted to the Court on 17-05-2021. Therefore, to rely on the fact that the I.O. had not prayed for remand after 21-05-2021 is something which is totally against the record placed before the Court. Therefore, the grounds taken by the learned Special Judge to consider the bail of the accused on the ground that prayer has not been made before the Special Judge for further remand is absurd and whimsical. Learned P.P. submits that the I.O. was consulted on this issue and it was clarified that error was committed in the charge sheet therefore it was sent back for rectification and filed on 29-05-2021. However, this does not give ground to the learned Special Judge to grant bail since it was in the notice of the learned Special Judge that charge sheet had already been filed which absolves the I.O. from making further prayer for remand. She has therefore, argued that the bail order dated 29-05-2021 has been passed without proper exercise of mind and in a whimsical manner without considering the gravity and heinous nature of the offence. The impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and accused be arrested and committed to judicial custody for fair trial. 7. Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides presumptive provision which allows the Special Court to presume that accused has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence as the case may be unless contrary is proved. The offences specified under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act are provisions which is covered by Section 29. In the amended charge sheet the accused has been Charged under Section 10 of the POCSO Act which is punitive section for offence under Section 9. The offences specified under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act are provisions which is covered by Section 29. In the amended charge sheet the accused has been Charged under Section 10 of the POCSO Act which is punitive section for offence under Section 9. Therefore, there is the strong presumption against the accused that the accused has committed the offence until proven otherwise as per the Act. 8. As per the amended charge sheet during the course of investigation as established from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and witnesses circumstantial evidence is established that the alleged accused took the victim upstairs and touched the victim’s private part “by Sir” and “Sir” was identified by the victim child as the Principal which was disclosed to the witnesses and also before the CWC Member and Child Psychiatrist. Section 164 Cr PC recorded of the victim child, states that “I don’t want to go to school because my sir touches my private. “My sir takes me upstairs and touches my private parts.” “My Sir told me not to tell nobody.” It is clear from the charge sheet that the accused committed sexual assault upon the minor punishable under Section 354A and 354B IPC read with Section 10 of POCSO Act. 9. On the issue of cancellation of grant of bail, the learned P.P. has placed reliance upon the case of State of Bihar vs. Raj Ballav Prasad @ Raj Ballav Prasad Yadav @ Raj Ballav Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 . The Apex Court has in the above cited ruling has decided that:- “10...While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail. 18. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the impugned order granting bail to the accused deserves to be quashed and a direction needs to be given to the police to take the accused in custody.” 10. The above decision of the Apex Court clearly provides that when relevant issues has not been taken into consideration and bail is granted, the Court has to step in and take corrective steps. 11. Appearing for the respondent, learned counsel Mr. P.B. Paul submits that Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not apply. The accused has been charged under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides for presumption for offences under Section 3, 5, 7 and 9. 12. Learned counsel also submits that the accused has been under constant medical treatment and there is the certification of the Pharmacist District Jail, Dimapur that the accused during the custody in jail from 09-04-2021 to 29-05-2021 has been administered with the following medication:- (1) Tab.Cyra-D (2) Tab. Pan-D 40mg (3) Cap.Pilogen (4) Syrup Lactihep (5) Tab. Serra Forte (6) Cream Peloruts This being the position, the learned counsel submits that the medical grounds pressed by the accused is a genuine ground. 13. Pan-D 40mg (3) Cap.Pilogen (4) Syrup Lactihep (5) Tab. Serra Forte (6) Cream Peloruts This being the position, the learned counsel submits that the medical grounds pressed by the accused is a genuine ground. 13. On the issue of discrepancy with regard to the issue whether charge sheet was filed on 17-05-2021 or on 29-05-2021 and whether the charge sheet was brought to the notice of the Court on 17-05-2021 will only be explained by the authors themselves. However, he justifies that there is the strong presumption that charge sheet was not brought before the Special Judge and remand having been granted till 21-05-2021, it was appropriate for the learned Special Judge to consider that the accused remained on illegal detention. He therefore pleads that there is no irregularity for considering the bail on medical ground and for illegal detention. 14. With respect to the cancellation of bail, the learned counsel submits that while considering cancellation of bail the matter must not be lightly resorted to as it interferes with the liberty of the individual already secured. He has placed reliance upon the case of State of Manipur vs. Pheiroijam Joy Singh, 2001 (1) GLT 592, it has been opined that:- “3. It is a settled position of law that the petition for cancellation of bail shall not be taken in such light manner. In a catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it was held that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of individual and it must not be tightly resorted to. The Apex Court had reiterated in its decision that there must be a very cogent and overwhelming grounds as well as compelling circumstances for which bail granted can be cancelled. The Apex Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961 held that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail once granted. That is because cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the court or by the thrust of law.” 15. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail once granted. That is because cancellation of bail interferes with the liberty already secured by the accused either on the exercise of discretion by the court or by the thrust of law.” 15. He has further relied upon the case of Bhagirath Rath Singh S/o Mahipat Singh Judeja vs. State of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284 . In line with the already referred judgment, the Apex Court has opined that:- “The only material considerations in such situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. The order made by the High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we consider in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to interfere with the order made by the High Court.” 16. He has further placed reliance upon the case of Aslam Babalal Desai vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- “As stated in Raghubir Singh's case the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) are identical, namely, bail granted under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439(1) can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. It must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.” 17. Relying upon the three judgments which have clearly demonstrated that bail once granted, cannot be cancelled unless there are compelling reasons to do so as it interferes with the liberty of individual and it cannot be lightly resorted to. 18. Relying upon the three judgments which have clearly demonstrated that bail once granted, cannot be cancelled unless there are compelling reasons to do so as it interferes with the liberty of individual and it cannot be lightly resorted to. 18. For all the reasons stated, the learned counsel submits that there are no cogent reasons why the bail order should now be cancelled. The accused has not violated the bail conditions, he is abiding with the conditions laid down by the Court, he has not absconded to evade the trial process. Therefore, there is no sufficient grounds or compelling reasons that the bail should be cancelled. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned P.P. Ms. V. Suokhrie appearing for the State and also the learned counsel Mr. P.B. Paul for the respondent. 20. The two issues involved in the present petition is whether the learned Special Judge, POCSO was justified in allowing the interim bail on the ground that there was illegal detention since the I.O. has not prayed for further remand with effect from 21-05-2021 which was the extend of remand granted by the Court. This Court has been taken to the fact that the I.O. has filed charge sheet on 17-05-2021. The clarification given by the learned P.P. after consultation with the I.O. of the case is that the charge sheet was found to be defective and therefore the same was sent back for rectification. Therefore, the charge sheet was filed after amendment on 29-05-2021 as per the records filed by the accused/respondent. On perusal of the Annexure placed before the Court, it is recorded that the I.O. had filed status report before the Special Judge (FTSC), Dimapur, Nagaland through P.I. The letter which is self explanatory will clear the doubts of contention that has arisen in this criminal petition: To, The Special Judge (FSC), Dimapur, Nagaland (Through PI Court) Sub:- Status Report Ref:- WN PSC/No. 007/21 U/S 376AB IPC R/W6 POCSO Act. Sir, With reference to the above case, Charge sheet has been submitted vice Women P.S. Charge Sheet No. 15/2021 dated 13.05.2021. Submitted for favour of kind perusal and information please. Forwarded to Special Judge (FTSC) Signed on 17.05.2021 Officer-in-Charge Women Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland Yours Sincerely Signed on 17.05.2021 (UBSI. Sir, With reference to the above case, Charge sheet has been submitted vice Women P.S. Charge Sheet No. 15/2021 dated 13.05.2021. Submitted for favour of kind perusal and information please. Forwarded to Special Judge (FTSC) Signed on 17.05.2021 Officer-in-Charge Women Police Station, Dimapur, Nagaland Yours Sincerely Signed on 17.05.2021 (UBSI. GLORIA JAMI) I/O of the Case Women P.S. Dimapur Forwarded to Special Judge (FTSC) Signed on 17.05.2021 Prosecuting Inspector Dimapur Court Nagaland Signed on 08.06.2021 FAST TRACT SPECIAL COURT. 21. From the above letter which is written by the I.O. of the case, it clearly testifies that the charge sheet was forwarded on 17-05-2021 to the Special Judge (FTSC) and the Prosecuting Inspector Dimapur forwarded the same to the Special Judge (FTSC) on the same date, that is 17-05-2021. The Peshkar (FTSC) has shown receipt of the same on 08-06-2021 which is not very legible. However, by application of common sense, the charge sheet would not take 12 days to reach the Court of the Special Judge (FTSC) since the order was passed on 29-05-2021. If the charge sheet was forwarded to the Special Judge (FTSC) and as per the version of the I.O. the charge sheet was found to be defective and sent back it was impossible for the learned Special Judge (FTSC) not to have taken cognizance that the charge sheet was defective and sent back. In the face of the fact that the Prosecuting Inspector had forwarded the charge sheet on 17-05-2021 to the learned Special Judge (FTSC). This suggests that the I.O. is dispensed with praying for further remand as charge sheet had already been filed. However, to our amazement, there is no record as to when the charge sheet was sent back. Therefore, it is clear there is some missing link as to when the charge sheet was sent back for amendment. If the Prosecuting Inspector had forwarded the charge sheet on 17-05-2021 and the charge sheet was not placed before the learned Special Judge (FTSC) on 29-05-2021, there is a period of twelve days between the two events which in the opinion of this Court is not a reasonable thing since the Prosecuting Inspector and the Court of the Special Judge (FTSC) are in proximity. If it has not reached the Court of the Special Judge (FTSC) genuinely then there was serious dereliction of duty which is not acceptable. If it has not reached the Court of the Special Judge (FTSC) genuinely then there was serious dereliction of duty which is not acceptable. Furthermore, the certification of the PPeshkar FTSC which is dated 08-06-2021 also adds further mystery to the whole issue. If the Pheskar of the FTSC was only in receipt of the forwarding by the I.O. on 08-06-2021 then amended charge sheet could not be filed on 29-05-2021. This conclusion is drawn considering that it has been clarified that the charge sheet was sent back for amendment. The charge sheet was forwarded to the Special Judge (FTSC) alone and to no other authority. Therefore, the charge sheet could not be sent back without the notice of the Special Judge (FTSC). The whole process with respect to filing of charge sheet received by the Special Judge (FTSC) and return of the charge sheet for amendment is not clear. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the ground of contention that the accused could be released on the ground of illegal detention since I.O. had filed the charge sheet on 17-05-2021. I.O. was dispensed with the duty of praying for further remand by the time bail was considered. Secondly, the first charge sheet dated 17-05-2021 could not be returned to the I.O. for amendment without the notice of the Special Judge (FTSC) since the I.O. had endorsed the charge sheet and forwarded to the Special Judge alone and no other authority without whose permission the I.O. could not on her own decision suo motu take back the defective charge sheet. It was routed through the I.O. who promptly forwarded the charge sheet to the learned Special Judge (FTSC) on the same date. 22. For reasons recorded, I am unable to accept the view that the learned Special Judge (FTSC) could consider there was illegal detention and accused be released on that ground. 23. Coming to the issue of considering whether it was justified that the learned Special Judge could consider the bail on medical ground, this Court finds that the ground raised by the learned P.P. that the Special Judge (FTSC) ignored the process of sending the accused for medical assessment by a recognized medical board for considering bail is well taken. Reasons being that the only ground available to the accused in serious offences of the present nature is medical ground. Reasons being that the only ground available to the accused in serious offences of the present nature is medical ground. This must be genuine and has to be put to test so that accused do not get the benefit of untested medical certificates which are easily available these days. It is the case of the prosecution and the prosecution must be given a chance to satisfy itself that the ground raised is genuine and the provision is not used to defeat the ends of justice to the benefit of the accused. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Special Judge (FTSC) committed error in not referring the matter to the medical board for satisfaction that the case is genuine before a neutral body. The medical certificates filed and furnished by the accused/petitioner in bail petition is always the version of the accused which is presumably from the doctor who treats the accused or known to the accused. Basing solely on the documents furnished by the petitioner/accused would therefore not be appropriate. 24. As per records available the submissions made by the learned P.P. it is correct that the accused has not reported of any ailment since his detention from 08-04-2021 till 29-05-2021. On 08-04-2021 when the accused was produced before the learned JMFC, Dimapur it has been recorded that “The accused has also stated that he has no health issues. The same is also reflected in his medical report placed before me” Order dated 09-04-2021 reflects “ Seen the forwarding with prayer for 15 days J/C also the medical report which reflects accused is conscious, oriented with no signs of internal injury. Accused stated that he has been vomiting since last night because of gastritis but fine at the moment but have some problems in breathing.” By another order dated 23-04-2021 judicial remand for 15 days was allowed till 08-05-2021 by the learned Special Judge (FTSC). However, there is no report of any medical issues. By an order dated 06-05-2021, District and Sessions Judge, Dimapur passed the following remand order. As Special Judge (FTSC) POCSO has tested covid positive, the accused Sandeep K. Jain is produced before me through V.C. The Court has examined the accused and he appears to be fine. I.O. of the case has prayed for another 15 days judicial custody in the interest of investigation. Prayer is allowed. As Special Judge (FTSC) POCSO has tested covid positive, the accused Sandeep K. Jain is produced before me through V.C. The Court has examined the accused and he appears to be fine. I.O. of the case has prayed for another 15 days judicial custody in the interest of investigation. Prayer is allowed. Accused is remanded to judicial custody another 15 days. Produce on expiry of 15 days. 25. The above was the last order of remand granted by the Court. There is no reflection or prayer by the Jail Authority/accused before the Court bringing the health condition of the accused concerning his ailment. The only complaint shown by the accused was on the subsequent day of the first remand when he was stated to be vomiting because of gastric but the accused states that he was fine at the moment. It is also reflected that the accused was having some breathing problem. However in the same remand order dated 09-04-2021 the medical report furnished before the learned JMFC was that “accused was conscious, oriented with no signs of internal injury. In the face of the recordings made by the JMFC, the District and Sessions Judge and the Special Judge (FTSC) there is no record available which suggests that accused was reported of having some medical issues. The certification which was filed by the Pharmacist is that the accused was under medication of certain drugs which we are unaware of as to what treatment it is related to. With the above undisputed facts, this Court is unable to consider that the release of the accused on medical grounds was justified. The offence being of serious nature precaution has to be made that the provision under 439 Cr.P.C. which gives benefit of bail on medical ground is not misused. The Court admittedly having no medical knowledge must rely upon authentic medical report to justify granting of bail. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the society now considers offences under the POCSO Act as a serious offence and the Parliament having considered this has brought about this legislation for effective measures against all child sexual abuses. It has now been submitted that charge sheet has already been filed on 29-05-2021. Charges under 354A, 354B and Section 10 of the POCSO Act has been leveled against the accused. 26. Argument that Section 29 does not apply to the accused is not considered. It has now been submitted that charge sheet has already been filed on 29-05-2021. Charges under 354A, 354B and Section 10 of the POCSO Act has been leveled against the accused. 26. Argument that Section 29 does not apply to the accused is not considered. Section 10 of the POCSO Act under which the accused is charged is only a penal section and the enabling section is Section 9 of the POCSO Act which is covered under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. There is obviously presumption of offence under Section 9 and punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act which the learned Special Judge (FTSC) must now take cognizance of and proceed accordingly. 27. This Court is clear that even in POCSO cases the medical ground may be considered for grant of bail by the Court, however, a procedure which is dependable must be adopted. Medical certification by a medical board which is a neutral body not inclined to the accused nor the victim has to be relied upon for consideration of bail for serious patients, not otherwise. The accused is at liberty to resort to this step by filing appropriate medical report from a board constituted for the purpose. 28. Having considered all the pleas, this Court has come to the undoubted conclusion that the learned Special Judge (FTSC) was in error in considering the bail of the accused on the ground of illegal detention and medical ground. Therefore, the order dated 29-05-2021 requires interference of this Court. 29. I have also considered the citations presented by the learned counsel for the accused/respondent and I am of the view that the rulings relied upon by the accused cannot be applied in the present set of facts since the question at hand is with regard to perverse exercise made by the learned Special Judge in considering the bail and not related to issues whether the accused is misusing the liberty of bail. 30. The impugned order dated 29-05-2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (FTSC) Dimapur is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused shall be committed to judicial custody for fair trial. The accused is at liberty to move the Special Court, POCSO for bail by filing appropriate medical documents from the medical board. The Superintendent of Jail, Dimapur is also directed to provide all necessary medical care to the accused. 31. The accused shall be committed to judicial custody for fair trial. The accused is at liberty to move the Special Court, POCSO for bail by filing appropriate medical documents from the medical board. The Superintendent of Jail, Dimapur is also directed to provide all necessary medical care to the accused. 31. With the above decisions and directions, the criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.