Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/439/2025rejected

Binod Hanri @ Binod @ Laden Hanri v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-06-26Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

26.06.2025 Item no.17(DL) Court No.42 srm (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(M) 439 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with POCSO Case No.15 of 2024 arising out of Garhbeta Police Station Case No.37 of dated 10.02.2024 under Sections 376(2)(n)/376(3)/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge under POCSO Court cum Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur; And In Re : Binod Hanri @ Binod @ Laden Hanri .... Petitioner Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Srinjan Ghosh ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar ... for the State.

Service report filed by the State is taken on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There are no materials to suffice the case of the prosecution. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits statement of the victim shows that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the application.

Perused the case diary and the materials on record. It is found from that there are allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence. Considering such materials in the case diary, 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 (M) 439 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)