30.09.2026 Sl. No.22 Mithun Ct no. 5 (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri C.R.M. (M) 274 of 2026 In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Special POCSO Case No.86 of 2025 arising out of Kharibari Police Station Case No.278 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025 under Sections 64/89 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act,2012 read with Section 3 of the Medical Terminate of Pregnancy Act. And In the matter of : Sushil Sarkar …. Petitioner Mr. Sayan De, Mr. Rimik Chakraborty …for the Petitioner Ms. Rima Sarkar …for the de facto complainant Ms. Panchali Deb Sikder(Nag), Sr.Govt.Adv., Ms. Ruchika Agarwala, Ms. Rajyashree Ghosh ...for the State In support of bail prayer, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence. There was long standing dispute between the family of the petitioner and the family of the de facto complainant which started in the year 2011 when a criminal proceeding being Kharibari Police Station Case No.28 of 2011 was started under Sections 493 /376/109 of the IPC. The enmity aggravated when another criminal case being Kharibari Police Station Case No.41 of 2021 under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act was initiated against 2 another relative of the de facto complainant who allegedly committed theft of electricity. The de facto complainant has initiated the present criminal case against the petitioner for wreaking vengeance upon him and to harass him unnecessarily. He further submits that the information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the concerned school discloses that the victim was present in her school on the alleged date of incident which makes the allegation improbable. Furthermore, the charge-sheet discloses that no evidence could be collected during investigation in support of victim’s abortion from the nursing home register and for which Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was removed from the charge-sheet. He further submits that there are lot of anomalies in the evidence of the star witnesses and, therefore, the presumption under Section 28 of the Act does not attract as the prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact beyond reasonable doubt. In this context, he relied upon Paragraph 52 of the judgment of Pratap Digal Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 7104. He further submits that the prosecution proposes to examine 12 witnesses out of which they could examine so far only two witnesses and, therefore, nobody knows when the trial would be concluded. Considering the fact that the examination of alleged vulnerable witnesses have already been 3 completed, he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer contending that victim and victim’s father had deposed before the Court which clearly establishes the foundational fact. Moreover, the medical report and other documents is prima facie in favour of the presumption created under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Now whether the victim was present in the concerned school or not at the time of alleged occurrence can be the subject matter of trial. At this stage, Court is not supposed to rely upon the impeachable defence document to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant opposed the bail prayer and submits that two witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, a direction may be given to the Trial Court for early conclusion of the trial. She further submits that the allegation against the petitioner has been prima facie established. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and also on perusal of the materials placed before me including the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, the prayer for bail is considered and rejected. However, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to make his best effort to conclude the trial, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. If the petitioner finds no substantial progress in 4 trial, for which the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner, he will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer after the expiry of the said period. Accordingly, CRM (M) 274 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.)