08.04.2026 Sl. No.49 Ct. 28 NB C.R.M (A) 572 of 2026 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lalgola PS Case No.1042/2025 dated 10.12.2025 under Sections 9/10/11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. And In the matter of: YYY … petitioner Md. Sabir Ahmed, Md. Abdur Rakib, Mr. Biswajit Sarkar. …for the petitioner. Ms. Amita Gaur, Ms. Jonaki Saha. …for the State. Mr. Rameshwar Sinha …for the de facto complainant. Mr. Kushal Kr. Mukherjee, Mr. Surajit Basu. …for the victim. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner got married to the alleged victim in February, 2023. The victim was aged about 17 years and more at that time. They led their conjugal life till December, 2025. Thereafter, she lodged an FIR through an NGO, which escalated the matter. The petitioner has later came to know that the alleged victim had a previous marriage. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim girl opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail. He submits that after she came to know that the present petitioner had an earlier marriage 2 and a child from that marriage, she decided to lodge an FIR. Although she was made to understand that the husband would take her back, he did not do so. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. The alleged victim is presently residing at her own house. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. She relies on the statements of the victim recorded before the learned Magistrate. In that statement, although initially, the victim stated that she had fled away and got married, later on, she went to say that she did not want to marry. She also stated that she was forced to have a physical relationship. There was also demands for money. However, the victim refused to undergo medical examination. Charge sheet has been submitted. Considering the above, the other materials available in the case diary, the fact that the alleged victim had refused to undergo medical examination, the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that a charge sheet has already been submitted, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and on further condition that the petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any 3 manner whatsoever and shall surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court and pray for bail within four weeks from this date. The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)