← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRM(A)/598/2025rejected

Bhola Das@Bholanath Das v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR

2025-11-17Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

17.11.2025 Item no.11 Court No.3 ss (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION , CRM (A) 598 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with Ghoksadanga P.S. Case No.267 of 2025 dated 19.05.2025 under Section 6 of POCSO Act. In the matter of : Bhola Das @ Bholanath Das ... Petitioner.

Ms. Riya Dey Mr. Sarthak Chowdhary Mr. Tarak Banerjee Ms. Trisha Banerjee ...for the Petitioner.

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

Mr. Bishal Deb ... for the opposite party no.2 1.

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

2.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are no such specific allegations against the petitioner. The mother of the victim has written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Cooch Behar, stating that the petitioner is not involved. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3.

Opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the victim is

mentally retarded. In her statement before the Magistrate the victim categorically implicates this petitioner. The victim due to such sexual assault became pregnant. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail. 4.

Learned Advocate for the mother of the victim submits that the mother has got no grievance against the petitioner.

5.

Perused the case diary and the materials on record. 6.

The victim in her statement before the Magistrate implicates this petitioner. She also states that she became pregnant subsequent to such sexual assault. The aspect of pregnancy gets support from the medical documents at page 117 of the case diary. Considering the above materials and the nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

8.

CRM (A) 598 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)