Judgment · High Court

Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Mr. Sachit Talukdar Ms. Shaila Afrin Mr. Prakash Mishra …for the petitioner … …For the State Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated solely out of suspicion since on the date of occurrence there were blood stains in the wearing apparels of the victim. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case out of previous animosity. Be that as it may, the mother of the victim and the victim herself have clarified in their deposition that at that point of time the victim was going through menstruation. There is no implication against the petitioner in the evidence of the victim as well as her mother. The vulnerable witnesses have already been examined. The other independent witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any iota of the evidence against the 2 petitioner, who is languishing for 488 days. He seeks for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

Opposing such prayer for bail, learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim has narrated the true incidents before the Magistrate implicating the petitioner in the alleged offence. The depositions of the victim and her mother appear to be deposed out of some extraneous pressure. The medical report is supportive of the fact that the victim was ravished. She seeks for dismissal of the bail application. Despite service none appears on behalf of the de facto complainant/victim. Perused the case diary and materials on record. From the medical examination report as well as the evidence of the doctor, P.W.4, the last menstruation period of the victim was 8th April, 2024. The incident has occurred on 12th April, 2024. Such aspect does not improbabilise the case of the prosecution. Further the medical examination report shows rupture of hymen. The victim before the doctor has stated that she was grabbed and taken away.

The victim during her examination in Court stated that she narrated the true facts before the Magistrate. The statement of the victim before the Magistrate clearly implicates this petitioner of ravishing her. Whether the blood stains on the wearing apparels of victim was of the menstruation or otherwise are to be decided in the backdrop of other evidences on record. 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. 3 The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial to the fullest extent and conclude the trial at an early date without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The prosecution is directed to produce witnesses as per schedule fixed by the trial court for examination of witnesses. The parties are directed to cooperate in the trial for examination of the witnesses. Parties are at liberty to communicate this order to the learned trial court. The application for bail being CRM (M) 1259 of 2025 stands dismissed. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)