Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suvo Panday @ Pandey @ Pande vs Unknown on 25 March, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
25.03.2025
Court No. 26
Item No.76
CRM (DB) 4429 of 2024
Rohan
In Re:- An application for Bail under Section under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sankrail
Police Station Case No. 842 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and Section 4 of the POCSO Act;
And
In the matter of : Suvo Panday @ Pandey @ Pande.
...Petitioner
Mr. Ashok Das,
Mr. Md.Toslim Ali.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Suman De,
Ms. Purnima Ghosh.
... for the State.
1.Petitioner renews the prayer for bail.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the last order of rejection dated July 4, 2024 directed the trial to be expedited and concluded definitely within six months from the date fixed for recording of evidence. Such order also allowed to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail. He submits that, the trial is unlikely to be concluded in the near future.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits a report, which be taken on record.
4. Petitioner is the principal accused in a case of kidnapping, abduction as well as sexual assault on a minor.
5. Trial is in progress.
6. Out of eight prosecution witnesses, three stands examined at the 2 trial.
7. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench dated July 4, 2024 passed in CRM (DB) 1832 of 2024 directed the trial to be concluded definitely within a period of six months. In default, the Co-ordinate Bench permitted the petitioner before us to renew his prayer for bail which the petitioner did by this application.
8. Enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage may be inimical to the trial. All prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
9. Petitioner is not founding his prayer for bail on the grounds that the prosecution witnesses so far examined exonerated him from the charges as against him.
10. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
11. Hence, the application for bail stands rejected.
12. Thus, CRM (DB) 3678 of 2024 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)