Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/1184/2025rejected

Sk Saddam v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-08-01Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

01.08.2025 Item no.9 Court No.42 ss (Dismissed)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 1184 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tamluk Police Station Case No.521 of 2018 dated 12.09.2018 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Charge Sheet No.346/19 dated 28.07.2019 under Section 363/376 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the learned Judge, Exclusive POCSO Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in SC No.154 of 2019. -AndIn the matter of : Sk. Saddam ... Petitioner Mr. Soupal Chatterjee Ms. Mekhala Kar ... For the Petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP Mr. Tirthankar Dhali ...

For the State Service report filed by the State is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there was love affairs between the victim and the petitioner. The victim left her house out of her own accord. There are no such incriminating materials against the petitioner. She seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the three victims were taken to Mandarmani by the petitioner and they were ravished. Medical report is supportive of such fact. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

Despite service none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.

Perused the case diary and materials on record. The statements of the victims recorded under Sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. show that this petitioner took the victims to Mandarmani and they were ravished in a hotel room by the petitioner. Considering such incriminating materials and bearing in mind nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial to the fullest extent and conclude the trial at an early date without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The application for bail being CRM (M) 1184 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)