Biswajit Mondal v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

28.04.2025 Item No.5.

Daily List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (DB) 259 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 corresponding to under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No.1624 of 2022 dated 4th December, 2022 registered for investigation into offences punishable under section 376/370/372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under section 4/8/12/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 corresponding to case no C. Spl. 99 of 2022. -AndIn the matter of : Biswajit Mondal ... Petitioner Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Mr. D. Biswas, Ms. Poulami Bose ...for the petitioner Mr. Rameshwar Sinha, Mr. Zoethan Pui Varte ...for the de facto/Survivors.

Mr. Bitashok Banerjee, Mr. Atanu Ghosh ... ...for the State Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are no incriminating materials against the petitioner who is the Manager of the hotel where the incident has taken place. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the petitioner is involved in trafficking of women which has been stated by the victim before the Magistrate as well as before the Court during her examination. He seeks for dismissal of the application. He files copies of depositions of the witnesses which are taken on record Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes such prayer for bail.

Perused the Case Diary and materials on record. The statement of the victims as well as their deposition in Court implicates the petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence of trafficking of women for sexual exploitation.

Considering the above materials and nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail being CRM(DB) 259 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)