Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1942/2026 of PINAKI BISWAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 6 October 2026
Court No.35. D/L.04. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 1942 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jagaddal Police Station case no. 323 of 2023 dated 10.08.2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
06.10.2026 Court No.35. D/L.04. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 1942 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jagaddal Police Station case no. 323 of 2023 dated 10.08.2023 under Sections 366A/370/370A/372/373 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6/17/21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.
And In the matter of : Pinaki Biswas
……Petitioner. Mr. Shashanka Sekhar Saha
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Parmanand Sharma, Ld. APP Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than three years, there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion very soon and none of the victim who has been examined till date has mentioned the name of the present petitioner or identified the petitioner in Court. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary and the victim who has named the specific role of the petitioner in engaging her in the flesh trade till date has not been examined. The report of the investigating officer reflects the same. Having considered the present case is under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and is not restricted to POCSO offence only, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail until the victim who has named the petitioner is examined.
2 Steps be taken by the prosecution to expedite the deposition of the said victim preferably within a period of four months from date. With the aforesaid observations, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 1942 of 2026 is dismissed at this stage. Report submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)