23.06.2026 Serial no. 5 [G.S.D] CRM (R) 40 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with ST No. 50 of 2026 arising out of Panskura PS Case No. 839 of 2025 dated September 15, 2025 u/s 351(2)/64/64(2)(e)/64(2)(m)/68(d)/79 of the BNS, 2023. -And- In the matter of : Jahir Abbas Khan … Petitioner(s) Mr. Rohit Das Mr. Indradip Das Ms. Anugraha Sundas … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee … for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Prabir Adhya … for the defacto – complainant(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16th September, 2025; charge-sheet has already been submitted; two of the victim ladies have been examined and the prosecution intends to examine 24 witnesses in support of its case, as such, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned advocate, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail on any stringent condition. Additionally, it has been submitted that over employment dispute, the petitioner has been victimized on the charges of sexual assault. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that earlier there was a case which was registered in the year 2008 and the trial in the said case has 2 not been completed. According to the learned advocate, there is every possibility that if the petitioner is released on bail, whole of the trial in the present case would be jeopardized. Learned advocate for the State produces the case diary and draws the attention of the court to the statement of the witnesses as also the medical documents. I have taken into account the overall circumstances including the list of witnesses on which the prosecution has relied upon. Although, two victim ladies have been examined but there are other vulnerable witnesses appearing in the list of witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. Having considered the materials appearing against the present petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (R) 40 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3