Bijoy Singh v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
29.10.2025 Item no.7(DL) Court No.42 srm (Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(M) 1788 of 2025 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Barasat P. S. Case No. 226 of 2024 dated 16.04.2024 under Sections 376(3)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and subsequently Charge sheet submitted being Charge Sheet No.296 of dated 22.06.2024 under Sections 376(3)/506/354C/306/511 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, now pending before the learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Barasat, North Parganas. In Re : Bijoy Singh .... Petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari, Ms. Oindrila Sinha ...for the Petitioner Ms. Shaila Afrin, Mr. Debarshi Brahma ...for the State 1.
Service report filed by the State is taken on record. 2.
This is renewal of prayer for bail.
3.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 561 days without there being considerable progress in trial. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
4.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that this is the third application. The prosecution has examined three witnesses and the trial is in progress. There are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner. She seeks for dismissal of the bail application.
5.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant.
6.
Perused the case diary and the materials on record. 7.
It appears that previously in CRM(DB) 3012 of 2024 and CRM(M) 387 of 2025 the bail prayer of the petitioner was rejected. There is no such change in circumstances. The victim in her statement before the Magistrate as well as in her deposition in court implicates this petitioner. In view of the above and bearing in mind the incriminating materials and nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 9.
However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial to the fullest extent and conclude the same at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
10. Prosecution is directed to produce witnesses on the scheduled dates.
11. The application for bail being CRM (M) 1788 of 2025 stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)