Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1274/2026 of XXX Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 10 September 2026
10.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 1274 of 2026 XXX Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the
M/L 48
10.09.2026
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.35
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M (M) 1274 of 2026
XXX
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with SPL No. 106
of 2025 arising out of Baguiati Police Station Case No. 359 of
dated
03.06.2025
under
Sections
143(3)/143(4)/127(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act read with Sections 8/12/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
And
In the matter of : XXX
……Petitioner.
Mr. Debapriya Majumder
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Brajesh Jha, A.P.P
Mr. Neel Chakraborty
…for the State
Ms. Jhuma Sen
Mr. Samsul Laskar
…for the Victim Girl
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.
1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year two months and has been implicated on the ground that the property was in the name of the petitioner. There are no accusations by the victim so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Learned Advocate relies upon a notarized agreement to substantiate that the said property was transferred to some other accused. Emphasis has been made on the order passed by the learned Special Court granting bail to Bapi Biswas and four others. According to the petitioner said Bapi Biswas was the manager of the said trafficking racket operated by him.
2. State has produced the Case Diary.
3. The documents which are appearing over there prima facie reflects that the enlistment of the property is in the name of the present petitioner. There are other materials. Fact remains trafficking was carried out at the premises. Petitioner emphasizes on the issue relating to situational parity. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that parity uniformly cannot be accepted in a criminal case. Each accused has his own contribution in respect of the offence. So far as the contribution of the present petitioner is concerned she was absent at the spot and operating the procedure and enjoying the benefits of the money of a flesh trade.
4. Having considered the manner in which the petitioner was outside the scene I am of the opinion that petitioner had full consent while carrying out the illegal trafficking. Having regard to the same I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail.
5. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
6. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M (M) 1274 of 2026 is dismissed.
7. Memo of evidence be kept with the record.
8. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)