Rohit Gupta @ Rohit Kumar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

Rohit Gupta @ Rohit Kumar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail prayer rejected; no relief to the petitioner. Directions issued: State to ensure a Judicial Officer is assigned to the vacant Court or, in the alternative, the learned District Judge to ensure the In-Charge Court proceeds; Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta to communicate the order to the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas South.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for 2 years 15 days in Kakdwip Police Station case no. 132 of 2019 (Sections 363/366/34 IPC), is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS notwithstanding the heinousness of the alleged child/women trafficking. +1 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the heinousness of the offence, particularly child/women trafficking, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage; the prayer for bail is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The State is to take steps to ensure a Judicial Officer is assigned charge of the vacant Court and, in the alternative, the learned District Judge is to ensure the In-Charge Court proceeds with the case; the Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta is directed to communicate the order to the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas South.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS (CRM (M) 158 of 2026) by Rohit Gupta @ Rohit Kumar, accused in Kakdwip Police Station case no. 132 of 2019 dated 30.06.2019 under Sections 363/366/34 IPC, rejected. Petitioner in custody 2 years 15 days; defence relied on the absence of his name in the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement; the State relied on the earlier order in CRM (DB) 2670 of 2022 holding the case to be one of trafficking outside the local police station's jurisdiction, pursuant to which the A.H.T.U. investigated and the petitioner's complicity transpired. Holding the offence heinous (child/women trafficking), Tirthankar Ghosh, J. declined bail at this stage and dismissed the application; directions issued on the vacant Court and communication of the order to the District Judge, 24 Parganas South.

05.02.2026 Court No.35. D/L.37. Rakib (Rejected)

CRM (M) 158 of 2026

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 Kakdwip Police Station case no. 132 of 2019 dated 30.06.2019 under Sections 363/366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

And

In the matter of : Rohit Gupta @ Rohit Kumar.

……Petitioner. Mr. Soubhik Mitter Mr. Joy Chakraborty Mr. Sandip Dinda ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. APP Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya ……for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years 15 days and the petitioner’s

name did not transpire in the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

On the other hand learned advocate for the State draws the attention to the Court of the earlier order passed in CRM (DB) 2670 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to hold that the case is of trafficking and the local police station have no jurisdiction to investigate the case. Pursuant to the A.H.T.U. taking up the investigation of the present case a detailed investigation was carried out when the petitioner’s complicity was transpired.

Having regard to the heinousness of the offence, particularly, child/women trafficking, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

2

Learned advocate for the petitioner complained that the Court is lying vacant at this stage.

Steps be taken by the State to ensure that a Judicial Officer is assigned the charge of the same Court, in the alternative learned District Judge will ensure that In-Charge Court proceeds with the case.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 158 of 2026 is dismissed.

Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta is directed to communicate this order to the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas South so that appropriate steps are taken.

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)