13.08.2026 Serial no. 1297 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 1207 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 Burtolla PS Case No. 150 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 u/s 61(2)/96/98/99/143/144 of the BNS read with sections 4/17 of the POCSO Act read with sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. -And- In the matter of : Banasri Roy @ Tina @ Bony … Petitioner(s) Mr. Apalak Basu Ms. Sanghamitra Mridha Mr. Arnab Mukherjee Mr. Y. Singhal … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Amal Kumar Datta … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the charges and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. However, there are no evidences in support of detention of the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been identified in the T.I. parade and the name of ‘Tina’ which has been used, refers to other accused persons. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are statements which support the prosecution’s case. To that effect, emphasis has been made on certain electronic transactions as well as the statement of guest house employees. 2 I have considered the evidence in the case diary and I find that this case is of such nature that the name ‘Tina’ has been used as a Code in respect of women trafficking and there are two other women who were also known by the code name of ‘Tina’ for the purpose of trafficking. The investigating agency at the initial stage faced hurdles to overcome the same. I have also considered that the case is not only under the provisions of BNS but also under the relevant provisions of POCSO Act and Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act. Having considered the overall circumstances and taking into account the complexities in the investigation involved as also the materials which have been collected, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case has been made out so far as the present petitioner is concerned which obviously is subject to cross-examination, as such, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. The petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses is over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1207 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. 3 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.)