05.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No. M/L.156 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2222 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 Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 150 of 2023 dated 11.08.2023 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 subsequently charge-sheet submitted under Sections 305/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and read with Sections 10/12/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and read with Section 4 of the West Bengal Prohibition of Ragging in Educational Institute Act, 2000. And In Re : Saptak Kamilya ... Petitioner. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kunal Ganguly ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP, Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Mr. Soumadip Saha ... For the State. Mr. Dipanjan Dutt, Mr. Soumodip Ghosh ... For the de facto complainant. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that although earlier there was a direction in CRM(DB) 2985 of 2024 to conclude the trial within a period of six months, but till date evidence of ten witnesses have been completed and the cross-examination of PW-11 is in progress. Records reflect that there are 12 accused persons. Some time is also being consumed for cross-examination of all the witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that prosecution on an assessment of the quality of 2 the evidence has reduced the number of witnesses to 23. As such, the prosecution intends to examine another 12 witnesses in support of its case. Having considered that custodial trial is being faced by all the accused persons, I direct the learned Trial Court to fix three schedules in a month, each of the schedule should consist of three dates and take steps so that at least examination of two witnesses per month is completed. All efforts be exerted so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are concluded by 30th September, 2026. No unnecessary adjournment be granted to any of the parties and the trial of the case would continue in spite of any resolution of the local Bar. At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Status report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2222 of 2025, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)