02.09.2026 Court No.28 Item No.2 ssi CRA (SB) 104 of 2026 (via video conference) In Re: An application under Section14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with Sessions (P) Case No. 63 of 2025, arising out of CBI, SCB, Kolkata Case No. RC 0562024S0004 of 2024 dated 16.02.2024 under Sections 363/365/34/368/370/120B/376 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 9 and 10 of Protection of Child Marriage Act In the matter of: Md. Belal Khan …appellant Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sk. Salim Mr. Sumit Routh Mr. Anish Tiwari …for the appellant Mr. Amajit De, Spl. PP …for the CBI Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits as follows. The prosecution case is that the 13 year old victim girl was allegedly raped by two of the petitioner’s friends. She was staying at the Burdwan Railway Station. It is alleged that an accused came there and offered her ‘Biriyani’. After that, she became unconscious. He took her to Asansol. That other person has now been granted bail by this Court. She regained her senses at Asansol. There the victim girl met the wife of the present petitioner who allegedly got her 2 forcibly married to another person. Thereafter the victim was allegedly taken to Rajasthan and was married off forcibly to another person. The victim was thereafter recovered from Rajasthan. There is nothing in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 that would implicate the present petitioner. In the examination-in-chief, the victim only stated that as the husband of one of the prime accused Ranu Khatun, the petitioner was present there. The Investigating Agency even showed photographs of all the accused to her. Out of 27 witnesses, 7 persons have already been examined including the victim girl. Learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the CBI strongly opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the case is under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sections 363, 365, 366, 370, 370A and 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The 13 year old victim girl was kidnapped by a co-accused and sold to the petitioner and his wife at Asansol. There she was kept on find. The victim girl has clearly stated in a statement before the learned Magistrate (exhibit D-24) that when she tried to escape, she was beaten up by the present petitioner. Thereafter, she was sold to one Bharat Kumar and a sham marriage was conducted. From a photograph seized from the mobile phone of the brother of the said Bharat Kumar, the petitioner and his wife are seen having the sham marriage conducted. Thereafter, the minor girl was again sold to a person in Rajasthan. She was again forcibly given in marriage and was sexually exploited. After a period of two years, the CBI could 3 recover her from a place at Rajasthan. Some vulnerable witnesses are yet to be examined. The impugned order is a well-reasoned one. Considering the above, the seriousness of the allegations which involve sexual exploitation of a minor girl by several persons, the apparent involvement of an inter-State racket for selling off the minor girl for sexual exploitation, the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, the alleged role ascribed to the present petitioner and the fact that certain vulnerable witnesses are yet to be examined during trial, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting bail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the proceeding. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)