Long custody pulls one way; an untested child witness pulls the other. The Calcutta High Court's order in Souvik Mukherjee @ Victor (CRM (M) 2855 of 2026, 30 October 2026) shows how courts resolve that tension when the victim's deposition is finally within sight. The petitioner had spent 1,112 days in custody in a case arising from Khardah P.S. Case No. 522 of 2023, charged under Sections 420, 498A, 406, 377, 376D and 354 IPC along with Sections 4, 8 and 14 of the POCSO Act. Justice Tirthankar Ghosh was "not inclined" to release him — but only at this stage: the victim's evidence stands fixed for the second week of December 2026, and the order records that the petitioner "will renew his prayer for bail immediately after the evidence of the victim is over".
The matrix
The underlying case was registered at Khardah Police Station in August 2023 and combines matrimonial-offence provisions — Sections 498A and 406 IPC — with grave sexual-offence allegations under Sections 377, 376D and 354 IPC and Sections 4, 8 and 14 of the POCSO Act. By the time the bail application reached Court No. 8 of the Appellate Side, the petitioner had been in custody for 1,112 days — a shade over three years — and pressed that the trial had made no meaningful progress.
The de-facto complainant opposed the plea with a decisive fact: the victim's evidence was fixed for the second week of December 2026. The State produced the case diary.
What the court weighed
1,112 days — a factor that ordinarily builds pressure toward release under Article 21 jurisprudence.
Recorded under Section 183 BNSS and considered alongside the medical report.
The single most important input: the victim's deposition was weeks away, not an indefinite horizon.
Against that matrix the court declined bail "at this stage", kept the State's memo of evidence on record, and built the renewal expressly into the order: the prayer may be revived immediately after the victim's evidence concludes.
Why the timing logic matters
Orders of this shape are common across High Courts in POCSO and sexual-offence matters, and they reflect a consistent judicial technique. Where the apprehension justifying custody is specific — influence over a child witness yet to depose — the court matches the restriction to the apprehension. It does not dismiss the application outright on the gravity of the charge, which would leave the accused to fight a fresh round from scratch months later; it fixes the renewal point at the moment the apprehension expires. For the defence, the order is less a defeat than a scheduled second hearing with better facts.
What each side should do between now and the deposition
- Defence: ensure readiness for the December date — any adjournment attributable to the accused will undercut the renewed application; keep a certified copy of the order recording the renewal liberty.
- Prosecution: produce the victim on the fixed date with support-person arrangements in place; repeated failures to examine the witness convert the tampering logic into a delay argument for the accused.
- Both: after the deposition, the renewed bail plea will turn on what the evidence actually was — consistency, corroboration by the medical record, and the remaining witness list.
Practice note: When opposing bail near a scheduled victim deposition, complainant-side counsel should place the fixed date squarely on record — it is often the fact that decides the order. Defence counsel, conversely, should seek an express renewal liberty tied to the deposition rather than a bare dismissal: the difference determines whether the next application starts from a changed-circumstance platform or from zero.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was bail refused despite more than three years in custody?
Because the decisive prosecution witness — the victim — was about to testify. The court weighed her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS and the medical report, and considered that releasing the accused on the eve of her deposition carried risks the timetable did not justify, since her evidence was fixed for the second week of December 2026.
What does a liberty to "renew after the victim's evidence" mean in practice?
It is an express judicial signal that the principal obstacle to bail is witness protection, not the merits of custody. Once the victim is examined and cross-examined, the petitioner may file a fresh application immediately, and the court will assess it on the changed footing — typically with the tampering apprehension spent.
Under which provision was the bail application decided?
Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the FIR dates from August 2023, before the new code applied, so the application carried both references.
Does delay in trial never outweigh the pendency of a victim's evidence?
Delay matters, and courts have granted bail in long-custody cases where trials drift without a fixed horizon. But where the key deposition is actually scheduled and imminent, courts frequently hold the line for those weeks rather than risk influence over the witness — while preserving an immediate renewal.