23.07.2026 Item No.13 Court No.9 CHC (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side C.R.M. (M) 371 of 2025 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Dhupguri Police Station Case No. 368 of 2025 dated 22.09.2025 under Sections 137(2)/64(2)(m)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023 and corresponding to Sections 363/376/506 of India Penal Code and read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. And In the matter of : Aminur Islam @ Hossain ...… petitioner Mr. Sudip Guha, Advocate Ms. Sayantani Das, Advocate Ms. Ankita Nag, Advocate ...for the petitioner Mrs. Panchali Deb Sikder (Nag), Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. Debabrata Rai, Advocate …for the Sate 1. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is absolutely innocent having committed no offence at all. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the investigation of the case has already concluded into a chargesheet as against the petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is alleged to have committed rape upon the victim as a result of 2 which the victim became pregnant and gave birth to a child. DNA test was conducted in respect of the aforesaid child. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that DNA test is negative so far as paternity of the petitioner in respect of the child is concerned. On such ground, learned advocate for the petitioner prays for release of the petitioner on bail. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that investigation of the case has concluded and the chargesheet has been submitted, charges are yet to be framed. He also submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 300 days and prays for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State refers to various materials in the case diary. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the State that rape committed upon the victim by the petitioner is established from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. DNA report denying the paternity of the petitioner in respect of the child born to the victim has no bearing so far as the allegation made by the victim is concerned. He opposes the prayer for bail. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the materials in the Case Diary and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the 3 BNSS implicates the petitioner so far as the commission of the offence of rape is concerned. 7. In order dated July 2, 2026 the coordinate Bench noted that the victim had given vivid description of the incident and pinpointed the petitioner as the main culprit. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Consequently, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 10. CRM(M) 371 of 2025 is dismissed. 11. Learned Trial Court shall endeavour to try and dispose of the case as early as possible. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)