Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/575/2025rejected

Ratan Barman@Bikram Barman@Chhotu v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-11-21Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction 21.11.2025 Item No. 03 (DL) AN (REJECTED) C.R.M. (A) 575 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Matigara P.S. Case No. 155 of 2017 dated 23.03.2027 under Section 363/376D of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4/8/10 of POCSO Act corresponding to Special (P) Case No. 14 of 2017 pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Special Court (POCSO Act), Siliguri. In the matter of : Ratan Barman @ Bikram Barman @ Chhotu ... Petitioner.

Mr. Swarup Das Mr. S. Roy ...for the Petitioner.

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, ld. APP Mr. Sagnik Sankar Sikdar ...for the State.

1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Service report filed by the State is also taken on record.

3. The petitioner renews his prayer for anticipatory bail.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there are no incriminating materials against this petitioner. The other co-accused who have kidnapped and ravished the victim have been granted anticipatory bail. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

5. On the contrary, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, learned advocate for the State submits that there are allegations against this petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail.

6. Despite service none appears for de facto complainant.

7. Perused the case diary and the materials on record.

8. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court in CRM No. 1295 of 2021 on 3rd January, 2022.

9. There is no change of circumstances.

10. Considering the above, I am not inclined to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.

11. Thus, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

12. The application being CRM(A) 575 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)