Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1813/2026 of PRABIR CHANDRA @ PRABIR CHANDRA ROY @ ABU CHANDRA ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 15 September 2026
no. 12 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1813 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Ghola PS Case No. 309 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 u/s
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.
15.09.2026 Serial no. 12 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 1813 of 2026
In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Ghola PS Case No. 309 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 u/s 126(2)/127(2)/143/144/95/96/61(2)/64/3(5) of the BNS and sections 4/17 of the POCSO Act and sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
-And-
In the matter of : Prabir Chandra @ Prabir Chandra Roy @ Abu Chandra Roy
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee
… for the State-respondent(s) Ms. Jhuma Sen Mr. Samsul Laskar Ms. Arpita De
… for the Victim
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for over a year and till date although charges have been framed but witness action has not commenced. The prosecution’s case in a nutshell is that the present petitioner along with his wife has been carrying out the business of sexual exploitation. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer bail and added that there was complicity and knowledge of the present petitioner in running of such business of prostitution.
2 Having considered the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that till the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses is over, it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1813 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)