29.04.2025 Item No.9. Daily List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 195 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bhatpara Police Station Case No.07 of 2025 dated 06.01.2025 under sections 77/78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. -And- In the matter of : XYZ … Petitioner Mr. Arindam Jana, Mr. Subhajit Choudhury, Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee …for the petitioner Ms. Suchismita Dutta …for the de facto complainant Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Mr. Prakash Mishra … …for the State Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that charge- sheet has been filed under Section 12 of the POCSO Act upon completion of investigation. The prosecution case is that the petitioner took victim’s photograph while she was taking bath. Nothing more nothing less. Such photos have not been circulated. There is no case of threatening or blackmailing the victim on the basis of those photos. The mobile phone has been 2 seized by the police. The petitioner is in custody for 112 days. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Learned Advocate for the State opposes such prayer and submits that the victim has categorically stated in her statement before the Magistrate of the overt act of the petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant opposes such prayer and submits that the petitioner certainly intended to circulate such photos and blackmail the victim. Such intention could not be accomplished since he was caught red handed. Perused the Case Diary and materials on record. The statement of the victim clearly implicates the petitioner in the alleged offence. The nature of offence is not a fit case to grant bail. Considering the above materials and nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail being CRM(M) 195 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)