01.09.2026 Court No.551 Item No.1 tbsr Rejected CRM (A) 2389 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Durgapur P.S. Case No. 78 of 2026 dated 14.02.2026 under Sections 108/107/65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 under Section 107/65 of BNS, 2023, under Section 6/8/12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 67(B) of IT Act, 2000. And In the matter of: DIPTANIL MAJUMDAR @ DIPTONIL MAJUMDAR ….Petitioner. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bikram Banerjee Ms. Amrita Chatterjee Ms. Sinjini Chakraborti Mr. Baibhav Roy Ms. Anushka Dasgupta …for the petitioner Mr. Lokesh Sharma Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur ….for the State Mr. Susnigdho Bhattacharyya Ms. Sarmistha De ….for the de facto complainant 1. Memo of evidence filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 2. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is pursuing his studies in Bangalore. He is no way evading his arrest or submission to the Court of Law. He also submits that as per the case made out in the First Information Report, the age of the victim, at the time of incident, 2 was more than 16 years. As such, the provision of Section 65 of BNS is not attracted as against the present petitioner. He also submits that since the victim was aged more than 16 years at the time of incident, the provision of Section 482(4) of the BNSS is not applicable to the present application for anticipatory bail. 4. As to the merits of the case, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the victim committed suicide. He further submits that the investigation of the case is already over. The petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. This is a case under Section 107/65 of BNS, 2023 and Section 6/8/12 of POCSO Act as well as the Section 67(B) of IT Act, 2000. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the materials in the charge sheet to submit that no material could be collected in course of investigation that shows, the petitioner has uploaded and circulated the offensive materials, i.e., videos and photographs of the victim over social media network. As such, a case under the provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 Act is not made out. He prays for anticipatory bail. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that when the victim committed suicide, the petitioner also tried to commit suicide. However, he was saved. He relies upon several medical documents showing the treatment of the petitioner for such attempt to commit suicide. Learned advocate for the State 3 submitted that the suicide attempt by the petitioner was not at the place where the victim committed suicide. 8. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the State relies upon various materials in the case diary including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. He also refers to the expert reports contained in the case diary and submits that the petitioner was very much involved in the incident. He also submits that in any case under the provisions of the POCSO Act is squarely made out as against the present petitioner. He opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 9. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 10. Heaving heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials in the case diary as well as the materials relied upon by the petitioner annexed with the application for anticipatory bail, thus the petitioner was allegedly in a relationship with the victim for some time. Taking advantage for such relationship, the petitioner took some photographs and videos which, according to the case of the prosecution, were uploaded and circulated over social media net works. So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner the applicability of Section 65 of the BNS as well as 482(4) of BNSS is concerned, owing to the age of the victim, the aforesaid provisions of the BNS and BNSS may or may not be applicable in the present case. But, at the same time, the victim was admittedly a minor 4 and provisions of POSCO Act are surely attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the material in the case diary is concerned, charge sheet in the case has been submitted under the provisions of the POCSO Act as well as the IT Act. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the materials in the case diary, I am on the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. 12. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 13. CRM(A) 2389 of 2026 stands disposed of. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)