← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM (DB)/741/2025dismissed

Piyush Kumar Shaw v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-04-07Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

07.04.2025 Item no.11 (ML) Court No.39 srm

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(DB) 741 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Belur Police Station Case No.228 of 2024 dated 13.11.2024 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;

And In Re : Piyush Kumar Shaw .... Petitioner Md. Wasim Akram, Ms. Sabrina Parveen ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Das ... for the State.

Ms. Sudeshna Das ...for the de facto complainant.

State files service report, which is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim had love relationship for a considerable period. There is no such incriminating material against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody for 115 days. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Learned Advocate for the State opposes such prayer for bail and submits that there are direct allegations against the petitioner of taking away the victim and thereafter he had sexual intercourse, resulting in pregnancy of the victim. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant/victim submits that the petitioner had taken the victim away to Ranchi and thereafter due to sexual intercourse the victim got pregnant. She also seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Perused the case diary and materials on record. It is found from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that the victim was forcibly taken away and thereafter the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim, resulting in pregnancy which is also evident from the medical report in the case diary. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is 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) 741 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.)