1 M/L 48 10.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 1274 of 2026 XXX Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with SPL No. 106 of 2025 arising out of Baguiati Police Station Case No. 359 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 under Sections 143(3)/143(4)/127(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Trafficking Prevention Act read with Sections 8/12/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act And In the matter of : XXX ……Petitioner. Mr. Debapriya Majumder …for the Petitioner Mr. Brajesh Jha, A.P.P Mr. Neel Chakraborty …for the State Ms. Jhuma Sen Mr. Samsul Laskar …for the Victim Girl 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year two months and has been implicated on the ground that the property was in the name of the petitioner. There are no accusations by the victim so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Learned Advocate relies upon a notarized agreement to substantiate that the said property was transferred to some other accused. Emphasis has been made on the order passed by the learned Special Court granting bail to Bapi Biswas and four others. According to the 2 petitioner said Bapi Biswas was the manager of the said trafficking racket operated by him. 2. State has produced the Case Diary. 3. The documents which are appearing over there prima facie reflects that the enlistment of the property is in the name of the present petitioner. There are other materials. Fact remains trafficking was carried out at the premises. Petitioner emphasizes on the issue relating to situational parity. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that parity uniformly cannot be accepted in a criminal case. Each accused has his own contribution in respect of the offence. So far as the contribution of the present petitioner is concerned she was absent at the spot and operating the procedure and enjoying the benefits of the money of a flesh trade. 4. Having considered the manner in which the petitioner was outside the scene I am of the opinion that petitioner had full consent while carrying out the illegal trafficking. Having regard to the same I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for granting bail. 5. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 6. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M (M) 1274 of 2026 is dismissed. 7. Memo of evidence be kept with the record. 8. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court. 3 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)