Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/1708/2025rejected

Roni Sarkar @ Rana v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-09-25Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

25.09.2025 Item No.4 Court No.42 ab Rejected

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 1708 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tapan Police Station Case No. 334 of 2025, dated 16.06.2025 under Sections 65(1)/74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 4/8/10 of the POCSO Act, now pending before the Learned Special Judge(under POCSO Act)-cum-ADJ, 2nd Court, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur.

-AndIn the matter of : Roni Sarkar @ Rana ... ... Petitioner Mr. Kaushik Choudhury ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. M.F.A Begg ... ...For the State Mr. Navanil De, Ms. Monami Mukherjee ... for the de facto complainant

1. Service report filed by the State is taken on record.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the victim and the petitioner had previous love affairs. There are no such incriminating materials against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for more than 50 days. The trial is in progress. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

3. Opposing such prayer for bail, learned advocate for the State submits that the victim categorically implicates this petitioner of causing rape upon her. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

4. Similar submission is advanced by learned advocate for the de facto complainant, who also opposes such prayer for bail.

5. Perused the case diary and materials on record.

6. The victim in her statement before the learned Magistrate as well as attending doctor implicates this petitioner of causing rape upon her. Considering the aforesaid incriminating materials, the implication of the victim as well as the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the bail prayer is rejected.

8. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial with 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. The application for bail being CRM (M) 1708 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)