09.03.2026 Court No.28 Item No.32 ssi CRM (A) 152 of 2026 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Nagarik Sanhita in connection with Bharatpur Police Station Case No. 35 of 2025 dated 12.02.2025 under Sections 137 (2)/140(3)/64/115(2)/351(2)/127(4) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act. And In the matter of: Janikul Sk @ Janekul Sk …. Petitioner Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Md. Jannat Ul Firdous Mr. Rajsekhar Hoda …for the petitioner Md. Hafiz Ali …for the de facto Mr. Sanjay Bardhan Mrs. Smita Saha …for the State Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. The victim was aged about 17 years. They two went together to places. After the relationship turned sour, the FIR was lodged. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and the report and strongly opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. He submits that the victim is a minor girl. In her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate, the victim admitted that she was acquainted with the petitioner. When she was asked to go to a place, she went, but was administered some intoxicating substance. Thereafter, she was taken to another place, kept confined 2 there, and raped. Learned counsel for the State also refers to the injury report. According to the report filed by the State, there is no separate statement made by the alleged victim before the CWC. Considering the above and the other incriminating materials available in the case diary, I do not consider this is to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. The presence of the I.O. is noted and is dispensed with. (Jay Sengupta, J.)