07.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.15 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 988 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Harwood Point Coastal Police Station Case No. 112 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025 under Sections 137(2)/87/64(2)(m)/49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. And In Re : Bidyut Samanta ... Petitioner. Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee ... For the State. Ms. Nandini Chatterjee ... For the de facto complainant. Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State along with the acknowledgement of the private opposite party no.2/de facto complainant be kept with the record. Memo of Evidence submitted on behalf of the State be also kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2025. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the victim is a minor and was trafficked to Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. She was forced to marry the accused; the minor became pregnant. The foetus was consequently terminated and during the interregnum period, 2

the guardians informed the police station, subsequent to which the case has been registered. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted. However, till date the evidence of the victim is not over. Having considered the overall circumstances in the present case, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail prior to the evidence of the victim being completed. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of the victim is over. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 988 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

07.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.15 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 988 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Harwood Point Coastal Police Station Case No. 112 of 2025 dated 08.05.2025 under Sections 137(2)/87/64(2)(m)/49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. And In Re : Bidyut Samanta ... Petitioner. Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee ... For the State. Ms. Nandini Chatterjee ... For the de facto complainant. Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State along with the acknowledgement of the private opposite party no.2/de facto complainant be kept with the record. Memo of Evidence submitted on behalf of the State be also kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2025. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant submits that the victim is a minor and was trafficked to Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. She was forced to marry the accused; the minor became pregnant. The foetus was consequently terminated and during the interregnum period, 2

the guardians informed the police station, subsequent to which the case has been registered. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted. However, till date the evidence of the victim is not over. Having considered the overall circumstances in the present case, I am of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail prior to the evidence of the victim being completed. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of the victim is over. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 988 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)