Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Seema Khatoon @ Seema Khatun @ vs Unknown on 17 April, 2025
17.04.2025
Item No.08.
Daily List Court No.39 Mithun (Rejected) CRM (DB) 895 of 2025
In re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/ under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kasba
Police Station Case no. 244 of 2023 dated 21.06.2023
registered for investigation into offences punishable under
Sections 120B/366A/370A/370/372/373 of the Indian Penal
Code 1860 and under section 3/4/5/6 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act 1956 and under section 4/17/21 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012.
-And-
In the matter of : Seema Khatoon @ Seema Khatun @
Simran
… Petitioner
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee,
Mr. Avik Ghosh
…for the petitioner
Mr. D.K. Singh,
Ms. Saptamita Pramanick
…for victim no.1.
Ms. Jhuma Sen,
Mr. Anirban Dey,
Ms. Swastika Chatterjee,
Ms. Arpita De
…for victim no.2.
Ms. Shaila Afreen,
Ms. Jonaki Saha
… …For the State
Service report filed by the State is taken on record. It is
found that service has been effected.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner used to arrange dance programme, in which the victim
girls used to participate. There are no incriminating materials
against the petitioner. Petitioner is languishing custody for last
2
one year and 10 months. He seeks for enlargement of the
petitioner on bail.
Learned Advocate for the State opposing the prayer for bail
submits that both the victims had categorically stated of the
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. She seeks
for dismissal of the bail application.
Ms. Jhuma Sen, learned Advocate appearing for one of the
victim submits that the vulnerable witnesses are yet to be
examined. This petitioner was arrested from the spot where the
victim girls were taken and they were sexually exploited. She
seeks for dismissal of the application.
Similar submission is also advanced by Mr. D.K. Singh
appearing for another victim girl.
Perused the case diary and materials on record.
The statement of the victim girls show that they were taken to
the hotel by the petitioner for prostitution which is also stated by
the victim in her deposition in Court. Considering the above
materials and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
The application for bail being CRM(DB) 895 of 2025
stands dismissed.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
3
[ad_1]
Source link