Xxxxxxxx Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

Xxxxxxxx Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application for anticipatory bail allowed: in the event of arrest, the petitioner is to be released on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions of not threatening or intimidating witnesses and of surrendering before the jurisdictional Court within four weeks with regular attendance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, named in Baishnabnagar P.S. Case No. 960 of 2024 under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/115(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

Considering especially the victim's subsequent statement, the fact that she had denied to undergo medical examination, and the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and anticipatory bail is granted.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one of whom must be local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to conditions that he shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses, shall surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court and pray for bail within four weeks from date, and shall regularly attend the jurisdictional Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Section 482, BNSS 2023 – application allowed. Petitioner and alleged victim, both adults, had a romantic relationship; after a misunderstanding an FIR (Baishnabnagar P.S. Case No. 960 of 2024, dated 10/09/2024, under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/115(2)/3(5) BNS r/w Section 4 POCSO Act) was lodged by the victim's father; the two have since married and are staying together. The victim's earlier statement before the learned Magistrate implicated the petitioner, but in her subsequent statement she said the FIR was lodged by mistake; she refused medical examination; charge sheet stands submitted. Held: custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required; in the event of arrest he is to be released on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local) to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, conditioned on not threatening or intimidating witnesses and on surrendering before the jurisdictional Court within four weeks with regular attendance. (Jay Sengupta, J.)

10/04/2026 D/L – 35 Court No.28 S. Kundu Allowed

C.R.M.(A) 380 of 2026

In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. In connection with Baishnabnagar P.S case no. 960 of 2024 dated 10/09/2024 under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/115(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

In the matter of: XXX Mr. Md. Wasim Akram Ms. S. Parveen Ms. Reshmi Khatun Mr. Sanjay Banerjee Mr. Sufi Kamal

...Petitioner. …for the petitioner. …for the victim. …for the State.

Report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner and the alleged victim had a romantic relationship. Due to some misunderstanding, an FIR was registered. Now, both the petitioner and the alleged victim are adults. They have got married and are staying together.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the alleged victim submits that due to some misunderstanding, an FIR had been lodged by the father of the victim. Now, both are adults. They have got married and the alleged victim is staying at her in-laws place, although the petitioner/husband has been out on work.

2

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he relies on the statements of the witnesses including that of the victim made before the learned Magistrate. He also submits that the medical examination was refused by the alleged victim. Although the victim implicated the petitioner in the earlier statement before the learned Magistrate, in the subsequent statement, she claimed that the FIR was lodged by mistake. She stated that she got married to the petitioner and was staying at the in-law’s place.

Considering the above, especially the subsequent statement of the victim, the fact that she had denied to undergo medical examination and the fact that charge sheet has been submitted, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this case and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to further conditions that the petitioner shall not threaten or intimidate the witnesses. The petitioner shall surrender before the learned jurisdictional Court and pray for bail within four weeks from date and regularly attend the jurisdictional Court.

Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

3

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

(Jay Sengupta, J.)