Prashanta Roy v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR.

July 03, 2025 4 ARDR (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

C.R.M. (M) 156 of 2025 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No. 126 of 2025 dated 05/3/2025 under Sections 137(2)/64 of the BNS, 2023.

And In Re :

Prashanta Roy ... Petitioner.

Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik, Mr. Subham Kumar, Ms. Sayantani Das, ... for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhishek Sarkar, ...for the de facto complainant.

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Mr. Biswaroop Roy, ... for the State.

This is an application for bail.

The petitioner has committed rape upon the victim. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous property disputes. She also submits that the petitioner may be released on bail on any stringent condition.

Learned advocate for the State refers to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the medical evidence of the victim contained in the Case Diary. I have gone through the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the medical evidence. The victim alleges rape committed upon her by the petitioner. The medical evidence notes signs of injuries over vulva labria minora,

external signs of injury were also present. There were signs of recent physical assault.

Considering the aforesaid materials in the Case Diary as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.

The application is disposed of.

Case Diary be returned.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)