08.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.5 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 984 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 393 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025 under Sections 137(2)/140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and adding Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. And In Re : Sk. Rohan ... Petitioner. Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Mr. Suman Bhanja, Mr. Golam Ahammed, Ms. Usashi Chattopadhyay ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Brajesh Jha, APP, Mr. Bhaskar Seth ... For the State. Ms. Sima Ghosh ... 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 was initially granted bail, but the said bail was cancelled on the grounds of provisions of Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 being added. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The fact of the case reveals that petitioner was a married person who forced the victim for cohabitation after abducting to a far-off place. Having considered the nature of offence complained of and the victim being a minor, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 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) 984 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. 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.)

08.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.5 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 984 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 393 of 2025 dated 21.10.2025 under Sections 137(2)/140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and adding Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. And In Re : Sk. Rohan ... Petitioner. Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Mr. Suman Bhanja, Mr. Golam Ahammed, Ms. Usashi Chattopadhyay ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Brajesh Jha, APP, Mr. Bhaskar Seth ... For the State. Ms. Sima Ghosh ... 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 was initially granted bail, but the said bail was cancelled on the grounds of provisions of Section 6(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 being added. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. The fact of the case reveals that petitioner was a married person who forced the victim for cohabitation after abducting to a far-off place. Having considered the nature of offence complained of and the victim being a minor, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 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) 984 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. 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.)