Dismissed¶26

Debopriyo Mondal @ Kitu v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC7 May 2025CRM(M)/60/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected at this stage; Section 483 BNSS 2023 bail application; Dhantala Police Station Case No. 797 of 2024 dated 28/11/2024; Sections 70(2)/70(1) BNS; Section 6 POCSO; petitioners Debopriyo Mondal @ Kitu and Bikash Mondal; custody exceeding 100 days; charge sheet submitted; T.I. Parade identification; victim statement under Section 164 CrPC implicating petitioners; medical examination suggesting rape; common order clubbing CRM (M) 60 of 2025 and CRM (DB) 905 of 2025; Suvra Ghosh, J.; decision dated May 07, 2025; case diary returned.

What did the court decide?

The court recorded the material connecting the petitioners to the alleged offence: identification in T.I. Parade, implication by the victim lady in her Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure statement, and medical examination suggesting commission of rape. ¶24

Debopriyo Mondal @ Kitu Vs State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

May 07, 2025 20 & 21ARDR (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (M) 60 of 2025

¶3

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Dhantala Police Station Case No. 797 of 2024 dated 28/11/2024 under Section 70(2)/70(1) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO.

¶4

And

¶5

In Re : Debopriyo Mondal @ Kitu ... Petitioner.

¶6

With

¶7

CRM (DB) 905 of 2025

¶8

¶9

And

¶10

In Re : Bikash Mondal

¶11

... Petitioner.

¶12

Adv. Prabir Majumder, Adv. Snehansee Majumder Adv. Debraj Shil,

¶13

... for the petitioners in both the matters.

¶14

Adv. Anasuya Bhattacharya,

¶15

…for the defacto complainat in both the matters.

¶16

Adv. Arijit Ganguly, Adv. Aritra Bhattacharya,

¶17

... for the State in CRM (M) 60 of 2025.

¶18

Adv. Minoti Gomes, Adv. Sobhan Gani,

¶19

…for the State in CRM (DB) 905 of 2025.

¶20

Since both the matters pertain to the same FIR, they are clubbed together and shall be disposed of by a common order.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for more than 100 days. Charge sheet has been submitted. Their further detention is not required.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State and the defacto complainant oppose the prayer.

¶23

¶24

Allegation against the petitioners is under Section 70(1) of the BNS. The petitioners have been identified in T.I. Parade. The victim lady has implicated them in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The medical examination of the lady also suggests commission of rape.

¶25

Considering the material on record connecting the petitioners to the alleged offence, prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶26

The applications for bail are disposed of.

¶27

Case Diary be returned.

¶28

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

¶29

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Debopriyo Mondal @ Kitu v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debopriyo Mondal @ Kitu v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikbal Hossain @ Faridi Iqbal Hossain Vs State of West Bengal

Biplab Murmu Vs the State of West Bengal

Giyas Sk and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal

Bikash Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Maharaj Chalak Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Byasdeb Rajowar Vs State of West Bengal