Haridas Mondal @ Dipu v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.
29.04.2025 Item no.5 Court No.39 ss (Dismissed)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(M) 97 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Barasat Police Station Case No.476 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024 under Sections 96/143/98/99/61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 4/6/17 of POCSO Act.
And In Re : Haridas Mondal @ Dipu .... Petitioner Mr. Debasis Kar ....for the petitioner Mrs. Shaila Afreen Mr. Bikram Mitra ..... for the State Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the bail prayer of the petitioner by order dated 13th March, 2025 in CRM(DB) 232 of 2025, liberty was granted to the petitioner to make an appeal to the Court for interim bail for a short period on humanitarian ground since the wife of the petitioner was in advance stage of pregnancy. The petitioner seeks renewal of his prayer for bail solely on humanitarian ground since the wife has delivered the child and they are admitted to the ICU at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. On the previous occasion, that is, on 23rd April, 2025 upon considering the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, report was called for from the State. In compliance thereof, the State has filed a report, which is taken on record.
It is found from the aforesaid report that the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on 17th April, 2025 at Unit No.IV, Gynaecology Department and she gave birth of a baby boy on 18th April, 2025 and on 23rd April, 2025 she and her child have been discharged. The report does not depict that the mother and the child was admitted to the ICU of the hospital. Thus, the humanitarian ground pressed into service for grant of interim bail does not stand to reason.
The charges against the petitioner are trafficking of minors as well as offence under Section 4/6/17 of the POCSO Act. There is, prima facie, incriminating materials against the petitioner. Considering the above materials and the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail prayer is rejected.
The application for bail being CRM (M) 97 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)