15.09.2026 Serial no. 16 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1821 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Ekbalpur PS Case No. 686 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 u/s 366A/370/370A/372/373/120B of the IPC read with section 4/17 of the POCSO Act and sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. -And- In the matter of : Zahid Alam @ Seru @Sheru … Petitioner(s) Mr. Suman De … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Biswajit Tewari Ms. Priyanka Bhattacharya … for the State-respondent(s) Ms. Jhuma Sen Mr. Samsul Laskar Ms. Arpita De … for the Victim Learned advocate for the ptitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years nine months and till date only one witness has been examined out of the 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the evidence of one of the victims is in progress and there is another victim to be examined. State produces the case diary and draws the attention of the court to the statement of the victim which specifically states the participation of the present petitioner. 2 Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that merits do not call for bail in the present case at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. However, the petitioner cannot be kept for indefinite period. As such, six month’s more time is granted to the prosecution to complete the vulnerable witnesses. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1821 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)