Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Alfaj Sk. @ Sekh vs Unknown on 2 August, 2025
02.08.2025
Item no.4(DL)
Court No.42
srm
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
C.R.M.(DB) 1133 of 2025
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Tehatta
Police Station Case No.537 of 2024 dated 23.07.2024 under
Sections 64(2)(m)/318(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and adding Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67 of The Information
Technology Act, 2000 and subsequently charge sheet submitted
on 19.09.2024 under Sections 64(2)(m)/318(2)/351(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and adding Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, presently
pending before the learned Judge Special Court under POCSO
Act, Tehatta, Nadia;
-And-
In the matter of : Alfaj Sk. @ Sekh
…. Petitioner
Mr. Santanu Talukdar,
Mr. Amanul Islam,
Mr. Sourav Mukherjee
…for the Petitioner.
,
Ms. Baisali Basu,
Mr. Kaustav Banerjee
…for the State.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
victim and the petitioner had previous love affairs. There are no
such incriminating materials against the petitioner, who is in
custody for last one year. Charge sheet has already been
submitted in this case. He seeks for enlargement of the
petitioner on bail.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the
State submits that the victim consistently implicates the
2
petitioner in her statement before the Magistrate as well as in
the evidence. He seeks for dismissal of the application.
Despite service, none appears on behalf of the de facto
complainant.
Perused the case diary and the materials on record.
The victim in her statement before the Magistrate though
states of love relationship with the petitioner, however, she
states of forcible sexual intercourse by this petitioner. There are
also allegations of making videography of such act and
blackmailing the victim. The aforesaid fact has also been stated
by the victim during her examination in court. Considering the
above incriminating materials and the nature and gravity of the
offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the
trial to the fullest extent and conclude the same at an early date
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties.
Prosecution is directed to produce witnesses before the
learned trial court as per schedule fixed for the examination of
witnesses.
Parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court
during examination of the witnesses.
The application for bail being CRM (DB) 1133 of 2025
stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)