Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Obaydulla Tarafdar @ Obaidulla vs Unknown on 9 July, 2025
09.07.2025
Item no.11(DL)
Court No.42
srm
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
C.R.M.(M) 708 of 2025
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure) in connection with ST Case
No.03(09)2024, Special Case No.71/2024 arising out of Baguiati
Police Station Case No.231/2024 dated 16.04.2024 under
Sections 343/366A/366B/368/370/372/373/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act, 1956 and added Section 14A of the Foreigners Act and
Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act and charges framed against the petitioner under Section
343/366A/366B/368/370(4)/372/373/120B of the IPC,
Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and
Sections 4/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Barasat, North 24-Parganas.
-And-
In the matter of : Obaydulla Tarafdar @ Obaidulla
…. Petitioner
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty,
Mr. S.S. Saha
…for the Petitioner.
,
Mr. Suman De,
Ms. Puja Goswami
…for the State.
Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya
…for the de facto complainant.
Service report along with status report filed by the State is
taken on record.
The petitioner renews his prayer for bail.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
victim girl has not identified the petitioner on dock during her
examination before the trial court and has also not named the
2
petitioner. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis
of the statement of a co-accused person. On the previous
occasion when the bail prayer of the petitioner was taken up for
hearing by this Hon’ble Court in CRM (DB) 364 of 2025, it was
submitted on behalf of the State that it proposes to examine only
12 out of 22 charge sheeted witnesses. However, the record will
show that the prosecution has already examined more than 12
witnesses which presupposes that a wrong submission was
advanced before the Hon’ble Court on the earlier occasion. He
seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the
State submits that the petitioner is a part of an organized crime
of child trafficking which are evident from the statements of the
witnesses. Although during hearing of bail application in CRM
(DB) 364 of 2025 it was submitted that 12 witnesses out of 22
charge sheeted witnesses would be examined on behalf of the
prosecution but 4 doctors, who are vital witnesses, were to be
examined which possibly could not be indicated at that point.
Already examination of 13 witnesses has been completed and 4
remains to be examined. She seeks for dismissal of the
application.
Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits
that grounds taken by the petitioner have been considered in the
previous application. The petitioner is a part of an organized
crime of child trafficking and considering the gravity of the
offence previously the bail application of this petitioner was
rejected. He also seeks for dismissal of the bail application.
Perused the case diary and the materials on record.
3
It is fact that on the previous occasion during hearing of
bail application being CRM (DB) 364 of 2025 the prosecution
proposed to examine 12 out of 22 charge sheeted witnesses. It is
informed that 13 witnesses have already been examined and 4
more remains to be examined. Which are the charge sheeted
witnesses to be examined is solely for the prosecution to decide.
The report filed before this Court by the State clarifies that two
independent witnesses and two investigating officers i.e. four
witnesses remains to be examined.
The grounds pressed into service in the present
application were considered in earlier application being CRM
(DB) 364 of 2025. The Hon’ble Court while dismissing the bail
application observed as follows:
“4. The allegation is of child trafficking. This is a heinous kind
of organized crime. All persons involved in such a crime may
not come to the fore front and may not be identified by the
victim. Many of the involved persons operate behind the
curtains.”
No fresh grounds have been raised in the present
application. Considering the above, I am not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial to
the fullest extent and conclude the same at an early date
without granting any unnecessary adjournment.
Prosecution is directed to produce witnesses before the
Trial Court on the schedule dates.
Parties are directed to cooperate in the trial before the
Trial Court.
4
The application for bail being CRM (M) 708 of 2025
stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link