Ananta Shee @ Annanta Shee v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

22.04.2025 Item No.12.

Daily List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected) CRM (M) 61 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in connection with S.C.(P) 154 of 2024 arising out of Nandakumar P.S. Case No.302/2024 dated 06.05.2024 under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 06/10/17 of the POCSO Act, Chargesheet submitted under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 06/10/17 of the POCSO Act -AndIn the matter of : Ananta Shee @ Annanta Shee ... Petitioner Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Mr. Uttam Bhattacharyay, Ms. Sukla Das Chandra, Mr. Bhaskar Seth ...for the Appellant/petitioner Mr. Sourat Nandy ...for the de facto complainant Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Mr. Debanshu Ghorai ... ...For the State Service report along with Memo of Evidence filed by the State is taken on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the allegations are out and out false. The petitioner is in custody for about a year. The petitioner is a teacher attached to the Convent School. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case and, as such, further detention of the petitioner is not required. The mother refused

for medical examination of the girl. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that as per the statement of the victim before the Magistrate as well as the attending Doctor, there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim was offered cold drinks and thereafter was ravished for a considerable period of time.

Perused the case diary and materials on record. The victim is a minor of 8 years of age. It is found from the statement of the victim before the Magistrate as well as before the attending Doctor that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of his involvement of the alleged offence, which is a grave one. 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(M) 61 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)