Gurudas Hembram @ Thala v. State Of West Bengal
03.09.2025 Item no.7 Court No.42 ss (Dismissed)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 1480 of 2025 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023 in connection with Special Case No.18/2024 under Section 331(4)/74 BNS and under Section 8 of POCSO Act arising out of Khatra Women Police Station Case No.61 of 2024 dated 31.10.2024 under Section 331(4)/74 BNS and under Section 8 of POCSO Act presently pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Special Court Khatra, Bankura.
In Re : Gurudas Hembram @ Thala .... Petitioner.
Mr. Debasis Sur Mr. Goutam Sardar Mr. Goutam Malik ... for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguli Mr. Rahul Ganguli ... for the State 1.
Service report filed by the State is taken on record. 2.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for ten months. There are no such incriminating materials against the petitioner. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
3.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim at the time of incident was 12 years of age and she consistently implicates this petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.
4.
Despite service none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.
5.
Perused the case diary and materials on record.
6.
It is found that the victim in her statement before the Magistrate as well as investigating agency and in her deposition in court consistently implicates this petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence. Considering the above incriminating materials and bearing in mind nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.
Accordingly, the bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected. 8.
However, learned 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.
9.
The prosecution is directed to produce witnesses as per schedule fixed by the trial court for examination of witnesses. 10.
The parties are directed to cooperate in the trial for examination of the witnesses.
11.
Parties are at liberty to communicate this order to the learned trial court.
12.
The application for bail being CRM (M) 1480 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)