05.05.2025 Item no.5(ML) Court No.39 srm (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(M) 219 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Nadanghat Police Station Case No.655/2024 dated 21.09.2024 under Section 351(2) BNS, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 being charge-sheet no.1 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 submitted under Section 351(2) BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act and adding Section 4 of the POCSO Act, pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna cum- Judge Special (POCSO Act); And In Re : Samiul Sk @ Saminul Sk …. Petitioner Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Mrs. Ghazala Firdaus, Mr. Mofakkerul Islam, Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Mr. Mithun Mondal, Mr. Md. Arsalan …for the Petitioner. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy, Mr. Sujan Chatterjee … for the State. Service report filed by the State is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the victim had love affairs with the petitioner. There are no incriminating materials against the petitioner. The victim left her house out of her own volition. The petitioner is in custody for 165 days. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Learned Advocate for the State opposes such prayer for bail and submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence as well as of 2 circulating the screenshot photographs of the victim. He seeks for dismissal of the application. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. The statement of the victim records that she left her house with the petitioner out of her own accord. Be that as it may, the victim implicates the petitioner of forcible sexual intercourse with her. There are also allegations of circulating obscene screenshot photographs of the victim. Considering such materials and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail being CRM (M) 219 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)