Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72569 (CAL)

RUMINA BIBI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM(A)/669/2025 · 2025-11-21

Bivas Pattanayak

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

21.11.2025 Item no.8 Court No.3 ss (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION , CRM (A) 669 of 2025 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with Ghoksadanga P.S. Case No.390 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025 under Section 6 of POCSO Act. In the matter of : Rumina Bibi … Petitioner. Mr. Subhasish Misra Mr. Satyajit Paul Mr. Rounak Ghosh …for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Kallol Nag …..for the State. Mr. Mayank Bhandari … for the de facto complainant. 1. Service report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the paternal aunt (pisi) of the principal accused. There are no such direct allegations against the petitioner. He seeks for grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned Advocate for the State, opposing such prayer for anticipatory bail, submits that the victim was taken to the house of the petitioner and she was offered adulterated 2 drink. On consuming such drink the victim became unwell and thereafter sexually assaulted by the accused no.1. He seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes such prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the obscene photograps and videos of the incident have been circulated amongst the friends of the accused no.1. He also seeks for dismissal of the application for anticipatory bail. 5. Perused the case diary and the materials on record. 6. The victim in her statement categorically implicates this petitioner of offering her with an adulterated juice, drinking which she became indisposed and thereafter she was sexually assaulted. Considering the materials as above and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. 8. The application being CRM (A) 669 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)