S.L.15. In the High Court at Calcutta Ct. 05 Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (M) 212 of 2026 30.09.2026 Bd. Gopal Sarkar Rejected. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with POCSO case no. 04 of 2025 arising out of Mekhliganj Police Station Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 14.03.2025 under Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Mr. Anirban Banerjee …for the petitioner Mr. Rounak Ghosh … for the defacto complainant Mr. Avrojyoti Das Mrs. Suman Sehanabis Mrs. Madhushri Dutta … for the State. The petitioner herein prays for bail on the ground that he is in custody for about 565 days and the charge- sheet has already been submitted on 11.04.2025. Since then the charge has not yet been framed and therefore nobody knows when the trial would commence. Considering the period of detention he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the written complaint are to the effect that on 14.03.2025 at about 14.30 hours, the minor daughter of the defacto complainant went to the house of the petitioner to play with his daughter but at that time the daughter of the petitioner was absent and taking advantage of the 2 situation the petitioner allegedly sexually assaulted the minor victim girl. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of bail prayer submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false and baseless. Petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence but the investigating officer after making perfunctory investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail and contended that a six year old girl was ravished by the petitioner. The crime is heinous in nature and during investigation sufficient incriminating materials have been collected by the investigating agency to substantiate the allegation of the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-complainant opposed the bail prayer contending that such person, if released on bail may commit similar type of offence in future. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also considering the nature and gravity of the allegation, and the materials placed before me, the prayer for bail is considered and rejected. However, Trial court is requested to make charge hearing at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the next date of hearing. If the charge hearing 3 could not be made during that period and for which the delay would not be attributable to the accused person, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer after the expiry of such period. Accordingly, CRM (M) 212 of 2026 stands rejected. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)