Amit Hassan v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

01.04.2026 Sl. No.54 NB CRM (A) 661 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Newtown PS Case No.31/2026 arising out of Newtown PS Case No.34 of 2026 dated 06.02.2026 under Sections 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

And In the matter of: Amit Hassan ... petitioner Mr. Asbir Ahmed, Mr. Shraman Sarkar, Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed, Mr. Md. Tehasin Reja.

...for the petitioner.

Ms. Baisali Basu, Ms. Rita Dutta.

..for the State.

Mr. Subhashis Dasgupta, Mr. Masnur Ahamed.

...for the de facto complainant.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner was having a romantic relationship with the alleged victim. There were talks of marriage. After the relationship turned sour, the present FIR was lodged. Even as per the allegations, the alleged victim had voluntarily come to the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the alleged victim got acquainted with the present petitioner only a few days prior to the incident. On the fateful night, they had all gone out together. The petitioner allegedly forced her into

getting drunk and took her to his own flat on the promise of dropping her home and thereafter, sexually assaulted her there. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He refers to the statement of the minor victim recorded before the learned Magistrate, the statement of a post occurrence witness and the statements of other witnesses and the medico legal examination report.

Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. The application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)