Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Babusona Majhi vs – Pravash Santra @ Pravash & Anr on 10 March, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
35-36. 10.03.2025
Court
No.26
(Rejected) (Pritam)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising out of Narendrapur Police Station
Case No.1061/2022 dated 25.09.2022 under Sections
376(3)/376DA/120B of the IPC, 1860 & Sections 6/17 of the
POCSO Act.
And
In the matter of: - Babusona Majhi.
.....petitioner.
With
CRM (DB) 3412 of 2024
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising out of Narendrapur Police Station
Case No.1061/2022 dated 25.09.2022 under Sections
363/366/376DA/34/120B of the IPC, 1860 & Sections 6/17 of
the POCSO Act.
And
In the matter of: - Pravash Santra @ Pravash & Anr.
....for the petitioners.
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty,
Mr. S. S. Saha
...for the petitioner in CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024.
Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi
...for the de-facto in CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024
and CRM (DB) 3412 of 2024.
2
Mr. Avishek Sinha,
Mr. Arup Sarkar
...for the State in CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024.
Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.,
Mr. Monoranjan Mahata,
Ms. Sanjida Sultana
...for the State in CRM (DB) 3412 of 2024.
1.
Two applications for bail are taken up for consideration as they
were being heard analogously by the co-ordinate bench.
2. Petitioner in CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024 contends that he is in
custody for in excess of 2 (two) years and 3 (three) months. It is
contended that, the prosecution lacks in proceeding with the
trial. In any event, there is no material, which implicates such
petitioner.
3. On behalf of the petitioner in CRM (DB) 3412 of 2024, it is
contended that, apart from the period of custody and the laxity
of the prosecution to begin the trial, the role of such petitioners
are not such that further detention of such petitioners are
required.
4. During the pendency of the two applications, it was contended
on behalf of the petitioners that, the mother of the victim that is
the prosecution witness no.2 was not attending the trial despite
dates being fixed for hearing examinations. It was contended on
behalf of the de-facto complainant that although the mother
was present on the dates of the trial, she was not produced as a
witness by the concerned Public Prosecutor.
3
5. In view of such allegations, we passed an order dated February
25, 2025, requiring the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police
to accompany the de-facto complainant to Court for the purpose
of recording her evidence. The same was done
6. State and the de-facto complainant are represented.
7. Trial is in progress. Out of 8 prosecution witnesses, only 2
stands examined.
8. Two prosecution witnesses examined at the trial are the victim
as also her mother. Both corroborate each other. Both ascribed
the role of rape of the petitioner in CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024.
Petitioners in CRM (DB) 3412 of 2024 are ascribed the role of
being present and watching the incident and not intervening.
9. Victim is a minor.
10. Enlarging any the petitioners on bail at this stage may be
inimical to the trial. It will obviously send a wrong signal to the
society.
11. Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement
of the petitioner in the incident, we are not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioners.
12. The prayer for bail is, thus, rejected.
13. CRM (DB) 3305 of 2024 & CRM (DB) 3412 of 2024 are
disposed of, accordingly.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)