Judgment · High Court

Mr. A. Karmakar Mr. A. K. Bhowmik ….For the Petitioner. Mr. Avishek Sinha Mr. Ronit Mukherjee …..For the State. Dictated by Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

The petitioner claims that he has been in custody for about 105 days. Investigation is complete. The instant case has been falsely initiated against him by the defacto complainant. In the first information report, it has been admitted that they were in relationship for about two years. However, she has lodged this false complaint to harass the present petitioner.

Learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for bail. According to him, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner. The petitioner committed rape upon the victim lady on the pretext of extending favour for the treatment of her son. In a room of the relevant hotel, she was ravished after being Signed By : APURBA BANDYOPADHYAY High Court of Calcutta 14 th of January 2025 11:29:06 AM 2 dragged. There are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner.

We have considered the materials on record including the statement of the victim lady recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is serious allegation that obscene pictures of the victim have been taken by the petitioner. There are sufficient incriminating materials against the

petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner’s prayer for bail, at this stage. The prayer for bail is rejected. CRM (DB) 3969 of 2024 is dismissed. We direct the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same on an early date. The parties shall communicate this order to the learned Trial Court. Needless to say that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and shall have no bearing on the trial.

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3