Petitioner v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR

D/L 47 19.06.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 Rejected

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 1292 of 2026 Petitioner Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Special Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2020 arising out of Bhangore Police Station Case No. 388 of 2019 dated 11.07.2019 under Sections 376DA/506 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act And In the matter of : Petitioner ......Petitioner.

Mr. Joy Chakraborty Mr. Sandip Dinda ...for the Petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Anamitra Banerjee ...for the State

1. Report submitted by the State be kept with the record. In spite of service none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 13th December, 2021 and he is in custody for four years six months. Till date four witnesses have been examined and the evidence of the P.W. 5 is in progress, however the prosecution has

relied upon seventeen witnesses as a whole to prove its case.

3. According to the petitioner there is no possibility of the trial concluding and the evidence of the victim is not inspiring.

4. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and produces the Case Diary. It has been submitted that the mode and manner in which the offence has been committed reflects a heinous offence.

5. The evidence of one of the victim reflects that she refused medical examination. Further her deposition before the Court also reflects that she has deviated from the statements and/or other materials which were relied upon in course of the investigation.

6. So far as the other victim P.W. 2 is concerned the evidence as well as the medical documents reflects corroboration relating to the incident.

7. The incident is a harsh incident and the petitioner was absconding prior to his arrest throughout a period of one and a half years.

8. Having considered the conduct of the accused, the manner in which two minor girls were taken to a bamboo bush and were ravished I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

9. Accordingly, C.R.M (M) 1292 of 2026 is dismissed at this stage.

10. State would take steps to expedite the process of the trial considering the period of detention of the accused.

11. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.

12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)