17.09.2025 Item no.2 Court No.42 ss HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (Allowed) CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (M) 1581 of 2025 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Khardah P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025 dated 20.03.2025 under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and subsequently Charge Sheet submitted on 14.05.2025 vide Charge Sheet No.223 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025 under Section 8 of the POCSO Act now pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge under POCSO Act, Barrackpore. In Re : XXXX …. Petitioner Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Chakraborty, Mr. Arka Bhadra …for the Petitioner Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda, Ms. Ayana Dey …for the State Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya … for the de facto complainant 1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the present proceeding has been initiated at the instance of the wife of the petitioner by using their minor daughter for her illegal accomplishment. There has been series of cases filed against the petitioner by the wife under Sections 498A/406 of IPC as well as under the Domestic Violence Act and also maintenance proceeding. The wife also filed a writ petition seeking direction upon the respondent authorities for suspension of the petitioner as per mandate of Part-IV, Rule 7(3) of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The petitioner is in custody for 6 months and upon completion of investigation, 2 charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. 2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes such prayer and submits that the victim who is the daughter of the petitioner implicates this petitioner of his involvement in the alleged offence. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application. 3. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is the daughter of the petitioner and her statement speaks of the circumstances she has undergone. The petitioner has been suspended in accordance with law since he was detained in custody for more than 48 hours. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application. 4. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and his wife are having matrimonial disputes, which has led to filing of litigation under Section 498A/406 of IPC, proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, proceeding for maintenance and a writ petition which are pending by and between the parties. In such backdrop, the allegation as made by the victim may be examined in trial. The petitioner is in custody for 6 months and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been submitted under Section 8 of POCSO Act. Bearing in mind the previous litigations and considering the aspect of conclusion of investigation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner 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, 3 to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under POCSO Act, Barrackpore subject to the following stringent conditions: (i) 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. (ii) The petitioner shall meet the Inspector-in-Charge of Khardah Police Station once in a fortnight, until further orders. (iii)The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Kharda Police Station except for the purpose of attending court proceedings and reporting to the Inspector-in-Charge of concerned police station. (iv) The petitioner shall furnish the address where he shall presently reside before the learned trial court, the investigating officer and the Inspector-in-Charge of the concerned police station under whose jurisdiction he shall presently reside. 7. 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. 8. It is made clear that the observation made hereinabove is only for the sake of disposal of this application. 4 9. Accordingly, the application for bail being CRM (M) 1581 of 2025 is disposed of. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)