Rohan Kanrar v. State Of West Bengal

24.07.2025 Item No.20.

Daily List Court No.42 Mithun (Rejcted)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 1129 of 2025 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Spl Case No.49/2025 arising out of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case NO.43/2025 dated 17.03.2025 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, now pending before the learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

-AndIn the matter of : Rohan Kanrar ... ... Petitioner Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S.S. Saha ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Indrajit Roy ...for the de facto complainant Ms. Faria Hossain, Mr. Rahul Ganguly ... ...For the State Service report filed by the State is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been placed in T.I. Parade. The victim did not sustain any injuries. The petitioner is in custody for about four months and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim categorically implicates this petitioner. The statement of other witnesses, particularly, the co-workers who came for installation of A.C. machines in the

house of the de facto complainant (father of the victim) supports the statement of the victim. She seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

Similar submission is advanced on behalf of the de facto complainant. He also seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. The victim, aged about 7 years, in her statement clearly implicates this petitioner.

Absence of injury may not improbabalize the case of the prosecution. Considering the above materials and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial to the fullest extent and conclude the same at an early date without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The application being CRM(M) 1129 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)