Atai Mollick@Atarul Mollick And ANR. v. State Of West Bengal

09.11.2021 saswata/pk ct 28 C.R.M. 7096 of 2021 sl no. 31 In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 27.10.2021 in connection with Tehatta P.S. case no. 227 of 2020 dated 25.08.2020 under sections 341/376/370/34 of the IPC, And In Re : Atai Mollick @ Atarul Mollick & anr.

........ petitioners Mr. Asraf Mondal ...... for the petitioners Mr. N.P. Agarwala Mr. S.Kundu ...... for the State The petitioners renew their prayer for bail. It is submitted that the allegations are out and out false.

Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioners in conspiracy with one another had lured the victim girl to Bangalore and she was raped by the petitioner no. 2.

We have considered the materials on record and the statements of witnesses particularly the victim girl, prima facie disclose involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. In view of the gravity of the offence and the prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the crime and since their prayer for bail was rejected earlier and the matter is fixed for consideration of charge, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. Trial Court is requested to promptly consider the issue of framing of charge and in the event, charge is framed, trial court is

directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an early date preferably within 1 year from the date of framing of charge without granting adjournment to either of the parties. (Aniruddha Roy, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)