30.09.2026 Sl. No.17 Mithun Ct no. 5 (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri C.R.M. (M) 232 of 2026 In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Maynaguri Police Station Case No.63 of 2025 dated 02.02.2025 under Section 137(2)/140(3) BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court-cum-learned Special Court under POCSO Act, Jalpaiguri. And In the matter of : Sailen Roy @ Shailen Roy …. Petitioner Mr. Bibek Tarafder, Ms. Rishita Chakraborty …for the Petitioner Mr. Hillol Saha Podder …for the de facto complainant Ms. Panchali Deb Sikder(Nag), Sr.Govt.Adv., Mr. Raj Kumar Mitra, Ms.Rajyashree Ghosh ...for the State In the written complaint it has been alleged that on 31st January, 2025 at about 23:00 hrs the complainant’s minor daughter, i.e. victim girl went missing from the house of complainant. Thereafter they came to know that the victim was sexually assaulted by the petitioner who is the friend of her father. In support of bail prayer, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 603 days. She further submits that the allegation made 2 against him is false and fabricated. He is the sole earning member of his family and the entire family is depending upon him. Due to prolonged detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the family of the petitioner is facing several financial hardship and extreme difficulties in maintaining their livelihood. She further submits that the prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses, out of which only one witness, i.e. P.W.4, who is the victim, has been examined so far. Therefore, it is uncertain as to when the trial would be concluded and, as such, he may be released on bail on any terms and conditions. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the bail prayer and submits that materials collected during investigation clearly disclose offence against the petitioner. Furthermore, from the deposition recorded by the prosecution also discloses heinous offence committed by the petitioner upon the minor girl. However, she submits that the trial is in progress and it is expected that the examination of the rest witnesses would be concluded within a short span of time. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the victim girl opposed the bail prayer contending that the allegation against the petitioner has been substantiated during investigation and, as such, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of tampering the other witnesses by the petitioner. 3 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also considering the materials available to me, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner is rejected. However, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to make his best endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the next date of hearing and if possible by conducting day to day trial, considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar for a considerable period of time. If the petitioner finds no substantial progress in trial during the said period, for which the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner, he will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer after expiry of the said period. Accordingly, CRM (M) 232 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.)