Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29505 (CAL)

SK. ARIYAN ALI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM(R)/75/2025 · 2025-07-02

Bivas Pattanayak

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

02.07.2025 Item No.3 Court No.42 ss (Allowed) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION C.R.M.(R) 75 of 2025 In re : An Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Rahara Police Station Case No.51 of 2025 dated 01.03.2025 under Sections 74/76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 now pending before the learned Judge, Special (POCSO) Court, Barrackpore, North 24- Parganas. -And- In the matter of : Sk. Ariyan Ali … Petitioner Mr. Debasish Kar Mr. Husen Mustafi Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra …for the petitioner Ms. Zareen Nasima Khan Ms. Chandrayi Dutta …for the State Mr. Sarbesh Pal Mr. Suman Chatterjee Mr. Tushar Das Mr. Pratush Ray … for the de facto complainant Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there are no such specific allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner and the victim had previous love affairs. The petitioner is in custody for last four months and upon completion of 2 investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Learned Advocate for the State, opposing such prayer for bail, submits that there are two victims in the present case. Both of the victims have specifically implicated the petitioner and other co-accused. She seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant leaves the matter to the discretion of this Court. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. From the statement of the victim it is found that there are allegations of assault and attempt. The victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner is in custody for last four months. Considering the above, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely Sk. Ariyan Ali be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be a local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge Special (POCSO) Court, Barrackpore. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on each and every day of substantive hearing subject to the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 355 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall meet the Inspector-in-Charge of Rahara Police Station once in a fortnight, until further orders. The petitioner 3 shall not enter within the territorial jurisdiction of Rahara Police Station except for the purpose of attending court proceedings and for reporting to the Inspector-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station, until further orders. The petitioner shall furnish the addresses where he shall presently reside before the learned trial court, the investigating officer and the Inspector-in-Charge of the police station under whose jurisdiction he shall presently reside. In the event the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as stated above, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court. It is made clear that the observation made hereinabove is only for the sake of disposal of this application. Accordingly, the application for bail being CRM (R) 75 of 2025 is disposed of. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)