Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2908/2025 of BISWAJIT DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 31 December 2025
No.06 31.12.2025 sp Vacation Bench CRM (M) 2908 of 2025 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Halisahar Police Station Case No. 398/25 dated
AD-5
Ct No.06
31.12.2025
sp
Vacation Bench
CRM (M) 2908 of 2025
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Halisahar Police Station Case No. 398/25 dated 22.09.2025 under Section 64 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
And
In the matter of: Biswajit Das.
Mr. Debasis Kar,
Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra,
Ms. Paramita Mukherjee.
… for the petitioner.
Ms. Mnisha Sharma,
Mrs. Suruchi Saha.
..for the State.
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. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Halisahar Police Station Case No. 398/25 dated 22.09.2025 under Section 64 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the initial complaint was lodged under Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, the investigating agency has subsequently submitted the Charge Sheet under the lesser offenses of Sections 8/12 of the POCSO Act. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to a personal vendetta involving his brother, who was closely related to the complainant’s family. on their instigation, complainant brought this prosecution against petitioner out of grudge.
3. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the victim refused to undergo a medical examination. Ld. Counsel points out material contradictions between the content of the First Information Report (FIR), and statements of defacto complainant recorded by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, inconsistencies are alleged in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 180 of the BNSS). Highlighting that the petitioner has been in custody since September 22, 2025, and noting the rejection of a previous bail prayer by the Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Barrackpore on December 10, 2025, ld. Counsel prays for bail on any stringent condition.
4. Having heard the submissions and considering the gravity of the allegations involving the POCSO Act, alongside the fact that the trial is at a nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail in CRM (M) 2908 of 2025 stands rejected.
6. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court, which shall be treated as authentic for all practical purposes.
(Uday Kumar, J.)