22.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 613. Kausik (Allowed) CRM (M) 2061 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Gazole Police Station Case No. 401/24 dated 26.05.2024 under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. And In the matter of : XXXX ……Petitioner. Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy Mr. Amarendra Chakraborty Mr. Tonmoy Chatterjee Mr. Argha Banerjee ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Biswajit Tiwari ….for the defacto complainant. Mr. Rajashree Venket Kundalia Mr. Narattam Acharyya ….for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that out of 28 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution, till date 10 witnesses have been examined and the petitioner is in custody for 1 year 9 months. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail, draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim as also the medico legal examination report. Apprehension is expressed by the State that there is every 2 possibility of the petitioner fleeing away from the process of law. Learned advocate for the defacto complainant is present and opposes the prayer for bail. I have taken into account the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., as also the evidence of the victim. Additionally, the medico legal examination report as well as the doctor’s evidence have been taken into consideration. Having regard to the aforesaid fact and the period of detention of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion further detention of the petitioner is unwarranted. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. As such, petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of Learned CJM, Malda. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of District of Malda without the prior permission of the learned Special Court. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2061 of 2026 is allowed. In the earlier order dated 15.09.2026 inadvertently the name of Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, learned advocate is reflected for 3 appearance for the State. The same is incorrect and the same should be read as Mr. Rajashree Venket Kundalia, learned advocate and Mr. Narattam Acharya, learned advocate. Let this be treated as part and parcel of the earlier order dated 15.09.2026. Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)