Jhuma Mondal on 27 March, 2026

    0
    48
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

    Act vs In Re : Jhuma Mondal on 27 March, 2026

    Author: Tirthankar Ghosh

    Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh

    27.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
    Item No.41 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
    Ct.No.35
    dc.

    Rejected
    C.R.M. (M) 345 of 2026

    SPONSORED

    In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of
    the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in
    connection with Nager Bazar Police Station Case No. 71 of
    2024 dated 19.03.2024 under Sections
    120B
    /363A/370/370A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
    4
    of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
    2012 and Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
    Act, 1956 and charge-sheet submitted under Sections
    120B
    /366A/370/370A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
    6
    /17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
    2012 and Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
    Act, 1956.

    And

    In Re : Jhuma Mondal
    … Petitioner.

    Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya,
    Ms. Seema Thakur
    … For the Petitioner.

    Mr. Manoranjan Mahata
    … For the State.

    Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with

    the record.

    Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

    that the petitioner is in custody since 19.03.2024 and till

    date, only one witness has been examined, out of 24

    witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. As such, petitioner may

    be released on bail on any stringent condition.

    Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other

    hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the

    allegations are under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal
    2

    Code, Section 4 of the POCSO Act as well as relevant

    provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

    I have taken into account the materials collected by

    the investigating agency. Having considered the gravity of the

    offence which involves trafficking of minors, at this stage, I

    am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the

    prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

    However, the State would take steps for substantial

    progress in the trial within the next 12 months.

    Petitioner would be at liberty to pray for bail after the

    aforesaid period is over.

    The application for bail, being CRM (M) 345 of 2026,

    is, thus, disposed of.

    All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of

    this order duly downloaded from the official website of this

    Court.

    Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

    for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all

    requisite formalities.

    (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here