Muniruzzama v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

02.07.2025 Item no.13(DL) Court No.42 srm (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(DB) 1144 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Spl. T.R. Case No.214 of 2024 arising out of Domjur Police Station Case No.991 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending before the learned Judge, Special (POCSO) Court, Howrah;

And In Re : Muniruzzama .... Petitioner Ms. Sonali Das ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Ms. Suveni Banerjee ... for the State.

Mr. Nitish Samanta ...for the de facto complainant.

Service report and progress report filed by the State is taken on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case out of political grudge. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted in this case and the petitioner is in custody for 171 days. She seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim, who is aged 13 years, has made serious allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence which is supported by the medical evidence.

She informs the Court that the charges have already been framed and 28th August, 2025 and 29th August, 2025 are the dates fixed for examination of the prosecution witnesses. She seeks for dismissal of the application.

Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail.

Perused the case diary and the materials on record. The victim is aged 13 years. The present petitioner is the Arabic teacher. It is found that the victim clearly implicates this petitioner with allegations which are serious in nature. Considering the nature and the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The application for bail being CRM (DB) 1144 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)