30.9.2026 24 SB Ct no. 5 Rejected Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri C.R.M. (M) 296 of 2026 In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station case no. 402 of 2026 dated 7.6.2026 under Section 137(2)/140(3)/49 of the BNS corresponding to PTN 35 of 2026. And In the matter of : Jayanta Singha …. Petitioner Mr. Sandip Guha Roy Mr. Ananda Paul …for the Petitioner Mr. Ujjwal Luksom Mr. Bappaditya Roy Mr. Sandipan Das ...for the Defacto-complainant Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP Mr. Gobinda Ghosh Ms. Baishali Chakraborty ...for the State Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during investigation, it discloses that the rape was allegedly committed by another person. Mere alleged presence of the petitioner at the hotel, does not ipso facto constitute offence as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner is in judicial custody for about 116 days. He further submits that after completion of investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet on 1st August, 2026 and thereafter, the charge has also been framed 2 against the accused person. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner as leveled in the FIR are concocted and inherently improbable. The prosecution proposes to examine 15 witnesses but they could not examine a single witness as yet and as such, further detention of the present petitioner would not yield any fruitful result only on the basis of allegation that he was an alleged abettor. Learned counsel for the defacto-complainant raised objection and contended that the materials clearly disclose that the petitioner was an abettor and had distinct role in committing the offence and therefore, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence have not been made out against the petitioner during investigation. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the bail prayer contending that from the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code and the medical examination report prima facie discloses the foundational fact in connection with the alleged offence. He further submits that the charge has already been framed against the accused persons including the present petitioner. It will not take much time to conclude the trial. If he is released on bail, there is serious chance of tampering witnesses by the petitioner. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also on perusal of the materials available in the record and considering the gravity of the allegation, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is rejected. 3 However, the Trial court is directed to conclude the examination of the victim and the defacto-complainant preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of the order. Petitioner will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer after recording evidence of the defacto-complainant and the victim by the Trial court. Accordingly, CRM (M) 296 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)