1 D/L 12 08.10.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.33 Allowed IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (R) 103 of 2026 Prashanta Kumar Nath Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bongaon GRPS Case No. 14 of 2026 dated 18.07.2026 under Sections 127(2)/74/76/79/196 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. And In the matter of : Prashanta Kumar Nath …Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sumit Routh Mr. Sourav Bera Mr. Nilanjan Das …for the Petitioner Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, A.P.P Mr. Tanusree Kar …for the State Mr. Sheelbhadra Sanyal …for the De Facto Complainant 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 50 days being falsely implicated of the offences under Sections 127(2)/74/76/79/196 of the BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act. He further submitted that the victim girls were asked to produce the valid tickets which was denied to be produced at Bongaon railway station. He pointed out to the seizure list at Page 34 of the Case Diary where the ticket in question was from Gobardanga to Ranaghat stressing that the victim were 2 travelling without a valid ticket beyond the station mentioned therein. Since the victim girls had been reprimanded the outcome resulted in filing of the instant complaint. 2. The learned Advocate representing the State submitted the statement under Section 180 and Section 183 of the BNSS to have recorded in respect of the victim girls, the mother of the victims as well as the dance teacher. The video recording was conducted through the CCTV installed at the concerned station. Since the charge-sheet has not yet been submitted and the victims to have been harassed and sexually offended, petitioner is not entitled to the prayer for bail. 3. The learned Advocate representing the State submitted of notice to have been served upon the victims. Learned Advocate representing the de facto complainant has opposed the prayer for bail. 4. The seizure list to be on record, the gravity statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS as well as under Section 183 BNSS and the contemporaneous documents do not further require custodial interrogation of the petitioner. 5. As such prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. 6. Accordingly, Petitioner, namely, Prashanta Kumar Nath shall furnish bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge, 1st Court (POCSO Act), Bongaon, North 24 Parganas. 3 7. The petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed before the learned Trial Court and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition the petitioner shall meet with the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station once in a week until further orders. 8. In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court without justifiable cause, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail automatically without reference to this Court. 9. Accordingly, CRM (R) 103 of 2026 is allowed. 10. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)