13.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.24. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 840 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 Dholahat Police Station case no. 46 of 2023 dated 30.01.2023 under Sections 363/365/366A/370/370A/372/373/376(2n)/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012. And In the matter of : Debashis Das @ Debasish Das. ……Petitioner. Mr. Sk. Toslim Ali Ms. Saba Parween .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Gurudas Mitra Mr. Utsav Dutta ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not named in the statement of the victim and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case and is in custody for a period of three years and six months. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and refers to the statement of the victim. I have taken into account the statement of the victim which refers to two persons. Subsequently before her deposition in Court the victim identified the present petitioner and also detailed regarding the role played by the present petitioner. The case is for human trafficking including using minors for the purposes of prostitution. The place of offence also includes within it ambit, places within the city where ordinarily accusations relating to such 2 offences are existing. There is also accusation under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act, there is a specific role of the petitioner for selling of the minor. To that effect a money trail has also been recovered. It is a fact that the petitioner is in custody for three years six months and only two witnesses have been examined out of the 24 witnesses cited by the prosecution. However, in such offences where specific role is assigned to an accused the Court cannot shut its eyes as repetition of such offence by the offender is a probability. Having considered the same, as a matter of last chance prosecution is granted one year time from date to conclude the rest of the witnesses. In case of default, the learned trial Court will release the petitioner on bail on such terms and conditions as the learned trial Court fit and proper. In view of the aforesaid order, the learned trial Court would fix at least more than one schedule in a month. The trial of the case would continue in spite of any resolution of the local bar and no unnecessary adjournment be granted to either of the parties. If a witness appears in Court, till the cross-examination is over, no adjournment should be granted in respect of the prosecution. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (M) 840 of 2026 is dismissed. 3 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. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)