Janarul Sk v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR
05.05.2025 Item No.10.
Monthly List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (DB) 634 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ in connection with C.Spl No.90 of 2021 arising out of Hariharpara Police Station Case No.296 of 2021 dated 04.08.2021 under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently charge sheeted under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code adding Section 04 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, thereby rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
-AndIn the matter of : Janarul Sk ... Petitioner Ms. Minoti Gomes, Mr. Golam Nure Imrohi ...for the petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Mr. Sharequl Haque ... ...for the State Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
Status report filed on behalf of the State is also taken on record.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there is variance in the statement of the victim recorded before the Magistrate vis-a-vis her deposition in Court. She seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim was abducted and taken to
Chennai where she was ravished. The victim has consistently stated of such fact in her statement before the Magistrate as well as in Court. He seeks for dismissal of the application. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.
Perused the Case Diary and materials on record. The statement of the victim implicates the petitioner of abduction and causing rape upon her. Such fact has also been stated by the victim in her deposition in Court. 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 status report reveals that 7 out of 15 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and 6 more witnesses are to be examined.
In view of the above, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Parties are directed to co-operate in the trial for examination of prosecution witnesses.
Parties are at liberty to communicate this order to the learned trial court.
The application for bail being CRM(DB) 634 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)