Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/301/2025rejected

Sahid Alam@Alom v. State Of West Bengal

2025-09-25Hon'Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak2 pages

25.09.2025 Item no.1 Court No.42 srm (Rejected)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(M) 301 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with POCSO Case No.17 of 2025 arising out of Mekhliganj Police Station Case No.251 of 2024 dated 15.08.2025 under Sections 238/239/249/351(2)(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mekhliganj, Coochbehar.

And In Re : Sahid Alam @ Alom .... Petitioner Mr. Debasish Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Madhusri Dutta ..... for the Petitioner Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee ... for the State Ms. Tanusree Ghosh, Ms. Anusuya Thatoi ... for the de facto complainant

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

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the victim and the petitioner had previous love affairs. There is no incriminating materials against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for 40 days. She seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

3. Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State appearing through virtual mode submits that the victim implicates this petitioner in her statement of causing rape

upon her. The investigation is in progress. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application.

4. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also submits that there was love relationship between the victim and the petitioner which was opposed by the parents of the victim. The parties intend to marry each other. She leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.

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

6. The victim in her statement implicates this petitioner of causing rape upon her. Considering such prima facie incriminating materials and nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

8. The application for bail being CRM (M) 301 of 2025 stands dismissed.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)