Nur Alam Sk v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
03.04.2025 Item No.09.
Daily List Court No.39 Mithun CRM (DB) 691 of 2025 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,/ under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Hariharpara Police Station case no.587 of 2024, dated 25.08.2024 under Sections 417/376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code 1860, read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (POCSO) 2012 (corresponding to C.Special Case No.115 of 2024) -AndIn the matter of : Nur Alam Sk ... Petitioner Mr. Ali Ahasan Alamgir, Ms. Somal Mal, Ms. Rabia Khatoon, Ms. June Modak ... ... For the Petitioner Ms. Suchismita Dutta ...for the de-facto complainant Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld.APP, Mr. Samarjit Balial ... ...For the State Status report filed by the State along with copy of the report of service is taken on record.
Mr. Ali Ahasan Alamgir, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the FIR is belated one. The victim alleges of an incident which has taken place one year prior to lodgment of the FIR. The petitioner and the victim was having love affairs which is evident from the FIR and the statement of the parents. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
Ms. Suchihsmita Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant submits upon instruction that the victim has been blackmailed by the petitioner on the basis of some photographs. She seeks for dismissal of the application. Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there are serious allegations against the petitioner of commissioning sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim which is also appearing in the medical report. He prays for dismissal of the application. Perused the Case Diary.
Upon going through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there are serious allegations against the petitioner of causing forcible intercourse with the victim which is also appearing from the statement of the victim as stated before the attending Doctor. Considering the materials as above and the 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) 691 of 2025 stands dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)