Judgment · High Court

Mr. Debasis Kar Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee Ms. Debadrita Mondal …for the petitioner … …For the State Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya … for the de facto complainant Service report filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been entangled in the present case after a lapse of five years. The petitioner is in custody for 4 months. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Learned Advocate for the State, opposing such prayer for bail, submits that there are allegations against the petitioner of making obscene videos and circulating the same. The mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized and sent to FSL. The statement of friend of the victim would show that such videos 2 and photographs were circulated. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also submits that the victim was blackmailed by the petitioner on the basis of obscene videos and photographs. He seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Perused the case diary and materials on record. The statement of the victim implicates this petitioner of making obscene videos and circulating the same. The friend of the victim in her statement also states of such circulation. Considering the above materials and bearing in mind nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail being CRM (R) 87 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)