Dismissed¶12

Buddhadeb Gan v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC2 May 2025CRM(M)/284/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; human trafficking of Bangladeshi woman to Delhi on promise of lucrative job; Sections 370/107/120B IPC read with Section 14C Foreigners Act; Sealdah GRPS Case No.75 of 2024; Section 483 BNSS 2023 bail application; principal accused Sonia Fakir live-in partner of petitioner; Jagadish Ghosh facilitator; Rs.15,000/- transferred from petitioner's account; risk of winning over witnesses; vulnerable witnesses yet to be examined; bail refused at initial stage; case diary returned.

What did the court decide?

The Court found the allegations extremely serious and noted prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence; if released on bail at this stage, the petitioner winning over witnesses could not be ruled out, particularly as vulnerable witnesses were yet to be examined. ¶11

Buddhadeb Gan Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

60 02.05.2025 Ct.No.34 b.das Rejected

¶2

C.R.M. (M) 284 of 2025

¶3

In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed in connection with Sealdah GRPS Case No.75 of 2024 dated 09.05.2024 under Sections 370/107/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 14C of the Foreigners Act.

¶4

And In Re : Buddhadeb Gan ... Petitioner. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Karan Dudhwewala ... for the petitioner. Mr. Saryati Dutta Mr. Atanu Ghosh ... for the State.

¶5

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has no nexus with the alleged offence. The petitioner prays for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer.

¶8

I have considered the material on record. A lady hailing from Bangladesh was called to India and was being allegedly trafficked to Delhi on an assurance of lucrative job in Delhi. The principal accused Sonia Fakir happens to be live in partner of the petitioner. One Jagadish Ghosh facilitated the movement of the lady from Bangladesh to India. It appears that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was transferred from the bank account of the petitioner to the account of Jagadish.

¶9

The allegation is extremely serious in nature. Considering the material on record as well as prima facie

¶10

¶11

involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, this Court is of the view that in the event the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, winning over witnesses by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Vulnerable witnesses are yet to be examined.

¶12

In view of the above, prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶13

The application for bail is thus disposed of.

¶14

Case diary be returned.

¶15

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order

¶16

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶17

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.