Sandeep Bose v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

D/L 3 27-08-2025 Ct. No.446 Saikat (Rejected) CRM (A)/2744/2025 SANDEEP BOSE VS.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

In Re: Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed in connection with S.C. (Spl.) 52 of 2025 arising out of Bhadreswar Police Station Case No.145 dated 19.04.2025 under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/3(5)/351(2)/75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed, Adv.

...For the Petitioner Mr. Imran Ali, Adv.

Ms. Suveni Banerjee, Adv.

...For the State Respondent

1. Heard the submission of the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned advocate for the Prosecution.

2. Perused the materials on record.

3. The allegations implicating the present petitioner mandated by lodging FIR under section 175(3) of BNSS and according to the submission advanced by the learned senior advocate representing the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is holding a reputed post. It is further submitted that chargesheet has been submitted and he will make himself available on each and every date before the trial court.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Prosecution raises strong objection.

5. Having heard the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned advocate for the Prosecution, carefully perused the materials in the Case Diary, considering the gravity of offence and allegations levelled against the petitioner, statement made by the minor aged about 7 years under section 183 of BNSS as well as the other witnesses recorded under section 182 BNSS against the petitioner, this Court finds the nature of allegation is serious and there is every possibility of effecting the trial.

6. In view of the above, even though charge-sheet has been submitted this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of section 482 of BNSS to the present petitioner.

7. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

8. The application for anticipatory bail is thus disposed of.

9. Case Diary is, however, returned.

10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

11. Parties are directed to act on the server copies of this order duly uploaded from the official website of this Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]