Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/209/2025rejected

Shanu Das @ Sudeb Das @ Sanu Das v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-05-01Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

01.05.2025 Item No.06.

Daily List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 209 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ correnpondence under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Balagarh Police Station Case No.45 of 2019 dated 04.04.2019 under sections 363/365/376(2)(n)(3) of Indian Penal Code 1860 read with under Section 6 of the POCSO Act in connection with G.R. Case No.463 of 2019 arising out of SC(SPL) Case No.19 of 2019 in connection with ST(SPL) 29 of 2023 pending before the Learned Judge Exclusive POSCO Court Chinsurah, Hooghly. -AndIn the matter of : Shanu Das @ Sudeb Das @ Sanu Das. ... Petitioner Mr. Arunava Ganguly ...for the petitioner Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Mausumi Sarkar ... ...for the State Service report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Trial Court. Since the petitioner failed to appear on two occasions, warrant of arrest was issued against him. He was again arrested on 16th December, 2024 and since then, he is in custody. He has two months old baby to look after. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Learned Advocate for the State opposes such prayer for bail and submits that similar circumstances were considered by

this Court previously in CRM(DB) 360 of 2025 and the bail prayer of the petitioner was rejected. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

Perused the Case Diary and materials on record. It is found that the petitioner after obtaining bail in the trial court absconded. Warrant of arrest was issued by the trial court and the petitioner was arrested on 16th December, 2024. The conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory for extending the privilege of bail. Previously, the petitioner filed an application before this Court in CRM(DB) 360 of 2025 and considering the conduct of the petitioner, his prayer for bail was rejected by this Court on 25th February, 2025. Under such circumstances, 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) 209 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)