Sneha Dutta v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

08.12.2025 Court No.28 Item No.21 tbsr Reject CRM (A) 3681 of 2025 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Baguiati P.S. Case No. 359 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 under Sections 127(2)/143(3)/143(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 8/12/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 also read with Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

And In the matter of: Sneha Dutta ....Petitioner.

Mr. Susingdho Bhattacharyya ....for the petitioner.

Mr. Iqbal Kabir Mr. Santanu Talukder .....for the State.

Ms. Jhuma Sen Mr. Saikat Pal Mr. Anirban Dey Mr. Samsul Laskar ....for the minor victim girl.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that other than the statement of a co-accused, there is no other material available against the present petitioner. The petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor in the statements of the victims recorded before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner was staying somewhere else at the relevant time.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the victims strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She points to the charge sheet and submits that there is a mention of a statement/document supplied by the hotel authorities that the present petitioner and other co-accused along with a minor victim girl were present at the hotel at the relevant time. Upon instruction, it is

submitted that the victim will be able to identify the present petitioner if placed for TI parade.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State points to a document present at page 345 of the case diary and submits that at the relevant time the petitioner and others were present at the hotel along with the minor girl. Call tower location details support the same. He relies on the statements of the victims including that of the minor girl and the other materials available in the case diary and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Considering the incriminating materials available in the case diary including the statement of the minor victim and the communication from the hotel authorities about the presence of the petitioner at the relevant place and the tower location details, I do not consider this to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The presence of the Investigating Officer is noted and is dispensed with.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)