Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Offences Act vs In Re : Mosaraf Laskar @ Raju on 16 April, 2025
16.04.2025
22
Court No. 39
jb.
jdt.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
C.R.M. (M) 19 of 2025
In Re : An Application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in
connection with Deganga Police Station Case No. 973 of 2015
dated 29.10.2015 under Sections 363/365/373 of the Indian
Penal Code, Section 5(a) of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act
and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
And
In Re : Mosaraf Laskar @ Raju
... Petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Kr. Prahladka
Ms. Reshmi Khatun
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Madhusudan Sur
Mr. Anindya Sundar Chatterjee
... For the State.
State files the service report in compliance to the
previous order dated 10th April, 2025 which is taken on
record. It is found that service has duly been effected upon
the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 7 years 8 months and trial has
not progressed. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on
bail.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned advocate for the
State submits that by order dated 3rd February, 2022
2
considering the gravity of the offence as well as the conduct
of the petitioner in trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court, bail
prayer was rejected and there was a direction for custodial
trial of the petitioner. He seeks for dismissal of the
application.
Perused the case diary and material on record.
It is found that there are materials showing
involvement of the petitioner in inter-State trafficking of
women for sexual exploitation. Further by order dated 3rd
February, 2022 in CRM (DB) 302 of 2022 considering the
gravity of the offence and the conduct of the petitioner in
trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court the bail prayer was
rejected and there was a direction for custodial trial of the
petitioner. Bearing in mind the aforesaid, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same at an early date.
The application for bail being CRM (M) 19 of 2025
stands dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied
for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary
legal formalities.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)