Sabbir Alam v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

30.04.2025 Item No.20.

Daily List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (DB) 1005 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kaliyaganj P.S. F.I.R. No.428 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024 under section 137(2) of BNS with added section 06/17 of POCSO Act & G.R. No.2254/2024.

-AndIn the matter of : Sabbir Alam @ Sabbir Ali ... Petitioner Mr. Ajay Debnath, Mr. Bikas Kumar Modok ...for the petitioner Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Mr. Suman Adhikary ...for the de facto complainant Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ld. A.P.P., Mrs. Rituparna Saha ... ...for the State Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim had previous love affairs. The victim left her home on her own accord. There is no forcible sexual intercourse by the petitioner which will be evident from the medical report. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted and the petitioner is in custody for 180 days. There is delay in trial and as such the fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed as enshrined under Article 21

of Constitution of India. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Learned Advocate for the State opposing such prayer for bail submits that the victim has been recovered from the house of the petitioner after one month. The medical report shows that the hymen has been ruptured. The statement of victim implicates the petitioner of forcible act. He also informs that 5th May, 2025 is the date fixed for examination of the victim girl. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence of forcible sexual intercourse with the minor victim. He seeks for dismissal of the application. Perused the Case Diary and materials on record. The statement of the victim recorded before the Magistrate clearly implicates the petitioner of taking away the victim and wrongfully confining her and thereafter entering into forcible sexual intercourse with her. 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) 1005 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)