1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/49/2026 The State Vs. Shyam Bika Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the petitioner Mr. R. Pradeep … for the respondent September 24, 2026 [AKB] Item No. 1 1. This criminal revisional application has been filed at the instance of the State with a prayer for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Trial Court to the accused by passing an order dated 31.08.2026 in connection with Special Case No. 45/2026. 2. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State said that, while considering the prayer for bail, the learned Trial Court failed to take into proper consideration the age of the victim, as well as the other materials and documents collected by the prosecuting agency during the course of investigation, which were relevant for determining whether the accused was entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. 3. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court did not properly appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the allegations levelled against the accused. According to the 2 learned Advocate for the State, the allegations relate to an offence allegedly committed against a minor girl suffering from mental disability, and the special vulnerability of the victim was a material circumstance which ought to have been taken into consideration while deciding the prayer for bail. It is contended that the nature of the accusation, the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, and the vulnerability of the victim required a more careful consideration before extending the discretionary relief of bail to the accused. 4. Learned Advocate for the State further submits that the accused/respondent is not a citizen of India and, therefore, there exists a reasonable apprehension that, if permitted to remain on bail, he may evade the process of law or flee from the jurisdiction of the Court. It is also contended that, since the process of recording evidence has not yet commenced, there is a further possibility of the accused attempting to influence, intimidate or otherwise interfere with the victim and the de-facto complainant, thereby prejudicing the fair progress of the trial. 5. According to the learned Advocate, these relevant considerations were either not considered or were not given due weight by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order. The order granting bail, therefore, suffers from material irregularity and illegality warranting 3 interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. On such premise, learned Advocate for the State prays that the present revisional application be allowed and the impugned order dated 31st August, 2026, passed by the learned Trial Court granting bail to the accused/respondent, be set aside, with such further order as this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 7. It is submitted by learned advocate for the State that if at all the order of bail granted to the accused person is not set aside then condition may be put upon the accused that the accused/opposite party should not be allowed to leave these islands till the examination of victim and the defecto complainant. 8. Per contra, Mr. Pradeep, learned Advocate appearing for the accused/opposite party, submits that there is no substantial or legally sustainable ground on the basis of which the impugned order dated 31st August, 2026, granting bail to the accused, warrants interference by this Court. It is contended that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the materials available on record and the rival submissions advanced before it, exercised its judicial discretion and granted bail subject to certain stringent conditions. 9. Learned Advocate further submits that the accused has been scrupulously complying with all the conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court while granting bail. There is no 4 allegation that the accused has violated any of the conditions of bail or has attempted to interfere with the investigation or trial. It is also submitted that no subsequent or supervening circumstance has been brought on record by the State which would justify cancellation of the bail already granted. According to the learned Advocate, mere reiteration of the allegations which were available before the learned Trial Court at the time of consideration of the bail application cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside a reasoned order granting bail. 10. It is, accordingly, submitted that the present revisional application is devoid of merit and does not disclose any perversity, illegality, impropriety or material irregularity in the impugned order. Learned Advocate, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revisional application. 11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned order dated 31st August, 2026, this Court proceeds to consider the matter. 12. The instant proceeding originated from a complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant alleging commission of the offence against the victim, who is a minor. Upon completion of investigation, the prosecuting agency submitted charge-sheet against the present accused under Sections 3(f)/4/5(m)/6/9(m)/10 of the Protection of Children from 5 Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read with Sections 65(2)/127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 13. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court duly considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and took into consideration the materials placed before it. The learned Trial Court also noticed that the investigation had already been completed and the charge- sheet had been submitted by the investigating agency. Upon assessment of the relevant factors, the learned Trial Court exercised its discretion in favour of the accused and enlarged him on bail, subject to certain conditions intended to safeguard the proper progress of the proceeding. 14. During the course of hearing before this Court, learned Advocate appearing for the accused placed a document and submitted that all the conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court while granting bail have been duly complied with by the accused. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court demonstrating any breach or violation of those conditions. 15. It is well settled that an order granting bail is not ordinarily to be interfered with merely because another view on the same materials may be possible. Interference by a superior Court may be warranted where the order granting bail suffers from perversity, patent illegality, material irregularity, non-consideration of relevant factors, consideration of wholly irrelevant factors, or is otherwise 6 contrary to the settled principles governing grant of bail. Equally, where a subsequent event or supervening circumstance demonstrates that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, interference may become necessary. 16. In the present case, it is evident from the impugned order that, at the time of considering the prayer for bail, the learned Trial Court had duly taken into consideration the materials available on record as well as the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused. It is also apparent that the learned Public Prosecutor appearing before the learned Trial Court had opposed the prayer for bail, though ultimately the matter was left to the discretion of the Court. The learned Trial Court thereafter imposed specific conditions upon the accused while extending the privilege of bail. 17. Significantly, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that, after being released on bail, the accused has violated any of the conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court, attempted to intimidate or influence the victim or any prosecution witness, threatened the de-facto complainant, interfered with the course of the proceeding, or otherwise misused the liberty granted to him. 18. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the State regarding the possibility of interference with the victim or witnesses is undoubtedly a relevant consideration while determining the question of bail. However, for the purpose of 7 cancelling an order of bail already granted, such apprehension must be assessed in the light of the materials actually brought on record. In the present case, apart from the apprehensions expressed by the learned Advocate for the State, no subsequent incident or concrete material has been brought to the notice of this Court demonstrating misuse of the liberty granted to the accused. 19. It is also relevant to note that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted. Thus, the apprehension of the accused interfering with the investigation, which may ordinarily constitute a relevant consideration at the pre-charge-sheet stage, stands on a different footing after completion of investigation. Of course, the possibility of influencing witnesses during trial remains a relevant consideration; however, in the absence of any demonstrated instance of such conduct after grant of bail, the same cannot, by itself, justify interference with the discretionary order passed by the learned Trial Court. 20. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court considered the relevant factors while granting bail and imposed appropriate conditions upon the accused. The State has failed to bring on record any supervening circumstance, subsequent misconduct, breach of bail condition, threat, intimidation or interference with the victim or witnesses which would justify cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Trial Court. 8 21. In such circumstances, this Court finds no sufficient ground to hold that the impugned order dated 31st August, 2026 suffers from perversity, illegality, material irregularity or non-application of judicial mind warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The challenge to the order granting bail, therefore, cannot be sustained on the materials presently available on record. 22. Accordingly, the present criminal revisional application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 23. However, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the fact that the victim and the de-facto complainant are yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court, this Court considers it appropriate, as an additional safeguard, to direct that, in addition to the conditions already imposed by the learned Trial Court, the accused shall not leave the Andaman and Nicobar Islands until the examination of the victim and the de facto complainant is completed, unless such departure is specifically permitted by the learned Trial Court for sufficient reasons. 24. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law and, as far as practicable, endeavour to ensure that the examination of the victim and the de facto complainant is completed without unnecessary delay. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information. 9 26. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )