Suvo Panday @ Pandey @ Pande v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
28.07.2025 Item No.2 Court No.42 ab
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 962 of 2025 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/ or an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Sankrail Police Station Case No.842 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022 being Special T.R.No.115 of 2022 under section 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the POCSO Act pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court (Special Court under POCSO Act) at Howrah. -AndIn the matter of : Suvo Panday @ Pandey @ Pande ... ... Petitioner (in Jail) Sk. Toslim Ali, Ms. Rituparna Bhadra ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Ms. Puja Goswami ... ...For the State The petitioner renews his prayer for bail.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years without there being considerable progress in trial. In the previous bail application filed by the petitioner, at the time dismissing such prayer this Hon'ble Court directed for conclusion of the trial within a period of six months. However, the trial has not been concluded as yet. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned advocate for the State submits that the victim has consistently implicated this
petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence. She informs the Court that five out of eight witnesses have already been examined and 7th August, 2025 is the next date fixed for further examination of prosecution witnesses. She seeks for dismissal of the bail application.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant/victim.
Perused the case diary and materials on record. The victim in her statement before the learned Magistrate as well as during her examination in Court implicates this petitioner of commissioning of rape upon her. Considering the materials as indicated above and bearing in mind the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail prayer is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial with fullest extent and conclude the same at an early date without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
The prosecution is directed to produce witnesses as per schedule fixed by the trial court for examination of witnesses. The parties are directed to cooperate in the trial for examination of the witnesses.
The application for bail being CRM (M) 962 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)