23.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.33. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2381 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Madhyamgram Police Station case no. 484 of 2024 dated 16.07.2024 under Sections 96/143/98/99/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 04 of the POCSO Act, 2012 additing Sections 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956. And In the matter of : Sraboni Nath ……Petitioner. Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh Ms. Laboni Sikder Mr. Souvik Dey .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Ms. Tanusree Kar ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 25th of July, 2023, till date only 3 witnesses have been examined and there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion. Emphasis has been made on a fact that all the 3 witnesses are victims and are vulnerable witnesses. As such, if the petitioner is released on bail there is no possibility of winning over of the witness and/or dislodging the prosecution case. Learned advocate appearing for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement and deposition of one of the victim. Attention of the Court was drawn by the petitioner to the bail which has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of an 2 accused namely, Rana Gope and two other accused persons namely, Biplab Haldar and Surya Debnath. I have taken into account the role of the present accused person, I find that so far as the statement of the victim is concerned, this petitioner and one Sima Sinha are completely on a different footing. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am of the opinion that the same will have an overriding effect over Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Regard being had to the same, I am of the opinion that the bail application of the petitioner is rejected. Earlier there were directions, however, the learned trial Court has not proceed to the satisfaction of this Court. It is reiterated that the trial Court would give some priority to the case so that the case reaches near its logical conclusion. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (M) 2381 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State 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.)