14.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.05. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 953 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Baguiati Police Station case no. 205 of 2023 dated 12.04.2023 under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code and adding Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. And In the matter of : XXXXX ……Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sumit Routh Mr. Sayani Das .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Seth ……for the State. Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee ......for the De-facto complainant. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for two years six months and till date only three witnesses have been examined out of the 16 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. According to the learned advocate the version of the victim is varying and there is no implication or foundation for the petitioner to be further detained. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant is present and opposes the prayer for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary. I find that except the three witnesses who have been examined, rest of the witnesses are belonging to the government 2 department. There is no ground to delay the trial any further. Accordingly, I find no reason to put the accused unnecessarily and indefinitely behind the bars. As such, I direct that within a period of six months the learned trial Court would fix dates for the rest of the witnesses on whom the prosecution intends to rely upon. If in spite of efforts being exerted by the learned trial Court the prosecution witnesses are not completed within the scheduled of six months, the learned trial Court would release the petitioner on bail on such terms and conditions as he deems fit and proper for ensuring further appearance. At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is refused. However, learned trial Court would adhere to the specific time schedule from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (M) 953 of 2026 is disposed of. Parties would be at liberty to communicate this order to the learned Special Court. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)