X X X X X v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
20.05.2025 Item no.7(DL) Court No.39 srm (Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(M) 342 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Crimi9nal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Special Case No.100 of 2020 and Spt. ST 46(4)22 arising out of Sarsuna Police Station Case No.59 of 2020 dated 13.06.2020 under Sections 6/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before learned Special Court constituted under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Alipur, South 24-Parganas;
And In Re : XXX .... Petitioner Mr. Abhimanyu Banerjee, Mr. Arnab Saha, Ms. Priyanka Yadav ...for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sujata Das, Mr. Karan Bapuli ... for the State.
Service report filed by the State is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years 10 months without there being any progress in trial. He further indicates that the sole eye-witness has turned hostile. The medical examination report does not support the prosecution case. The last witness was examined in June, 2023. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
Learned Advocate for the State opposes such prayer and submits that the victim has been ravished by her own father which has been stated by the victim. She also informs that only
two witnesses remain to be examined on behalf of the prosecution and the date is fixed on 10th June, 2025. She seeks for dismissal of the application.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.
Perused the case diary and the materials on record. The statement of the victim clearly implicates the petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence. The offence is a grave one. Considering such materials and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, bearing in mind the fundamental right of the petitioner for expeditious trial, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Prosecution is directed to produce the remaining witnesses before the Trial Court on the date fixed. Parties are directed to cooperate in the trial for examination of the remaining witnesses.
Parties are at liberty to communicate this order to learned Trial Court.
The application for bail being CRM (M) 342 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)