15.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.3 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2841 of 2025 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Hasnabad Police Station Case No. 340 of 2021 dated 02.06.2021 under Sections 341/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. And In Re : XXXXX Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Anita Kaunda, Ms. Anubrata Dutta ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Goutam Dey, Mr. Ranajit Ghosh ... For the State. Mr. Kaushik Gupta, Ms. Asmita De ... For the de facto complainant. Notice dated 11.07.2026 regarding acknowledgement of the private opposite party no.2/de facto complainant submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. Memo of Evidence submitted on behalf of the State be also kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the subject-matter of the present case is full of factual inconsistencies. According to the learned advocate, the medico-legal examination report do not support the version of the victim. The examination of majority of the witnesses is over and petitioner is in custody for 5 years 1 month. It has 2 been submitted that there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future. As such, petitioner may be released on bail on any stringent conditions. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the de facto complainant was misrepresented taking to a guest-house and she was ravished by the present petitioner. Earlier the application for bail of the present petitioner was rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that ten witnesses have already been examined in the present case. The period of detention of the present petitioner is definitely a cause of concern, however, the gravity of the offence and manner of commission of the alleged offence is to be taken into consideration. I have taken into account the evidence of the victim also and her cross-examination which has been enclosed along with the bail application and I am of the opinion that there is consistency in the version of the victim. Having considered the same, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. State is directed to complete the evidence of rest of the witnesses within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2841 of 2025, is, thus, disposed of. 3 All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)