Dismissed¶17

Paresh Bairagya v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC10 Feb 2026CRM(M)/1899/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; CRM (M) 1899 of 2025; Paresh Bairagya; Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; Section 439 CrPC 1973; Sections 376AB IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act; Murutia Police Station Case No. 141 of 2019 dated 30.07.2019; prolonged custody 6 years 7 months; delay in trial as ground for bail; victim and vulnerable witnesses' evidence concluded; remaining witnesses Medical Officers and Police; systematic delay; only one Court in sub-division; case diary returned; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; decision dated 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay alone cannot be the factor for consideration of bail of the petitioner. ¶15

Paresh Bairagya Vs State of West Bengal and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

10.02.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 1. Kausik (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (M) 1899 of 2025

¶3

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 141 of 2019 dated 30.07.2019 under Sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. And

¶4

In the matter of : Paresh Bairagya

¶5

……Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. Jaydeep Biswas Mr. Asraf Mondal Mr. Kaushik Ghosh

¶7

……for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Zareen N. Khan Mr. Ashok Das

¶9

……for the State.

¶10

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 6 years and 7 months. The evidence of the victim girl is over as also the vulnerable witnesses have been examined, as such the petitioner may be granted bail because of delay in the trial.

¶11

Learned advocate for the State submits a report. Report primarily reflects that the trial has been delayed for witnesses not being present on the date fixed and also systematic delay.

¶12

I have taken into account the merits of the case, partly the evidence of the victim as well as the medical and injury report which has been produced by the State. Primarily, I find

¶13

¶14

that so far as the merits of the case is concerned, the same is tilted in favour of the prosecution. It is also evident that the witnesses who are left to be examined are the Medical Officers and the Police witnesses concerned. There are certain systematic delays which are beyond the control of the prosecution also, particularly only one Court is operating in the sub-division concerned.

¶15

Having regard to the same and taking into account the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that delay alone cannot be the factor for consideration of bail of the present petitioner.

¶16

As such the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected .

¶17

Accordingly, CRM (M) 1899 of 2025 is dismissed .

¶18

Case diary be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the State.

¶19

Report submitted be kept with the record.

¶20

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

¶21

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