Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2423/2026 of PETITIONER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 9 October 2026
no. 112 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 2423 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Haroa PS Case No. 320 of 2025 dated 08.06.2025 u/s 85/103/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS and 6
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
09.10.2026 Serial no. 112 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 2423 of 2026
In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Haroa PS Case No. 320 of 2025 dated 08.06.2025 u/s 85/103/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS and 6 of the POCSO Act, section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.
-And-
In the matter of : Petitioner
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Mr. Supriya Das Mr. A. Baid Mr. S. A.Molla Ms. Upasana Banerjee Mr. Bisal Roy
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee Ms. Supriti Sarkhel
… for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Samim Ahammed Mr. Asif Ikbal Baidya
… for the defacto-complainant
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to amend the cause title. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year two months; charge- sheet has been submitted and charges have been framed. Learned advocate also submits that the deposition of CSW1 is in progress. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are accusations of continuous torture being inflicted within close proximity of time after the petitioner fled away with the minor, which compelled the minor to terminate her life. State also opposes the prayer for bail. Prima facie, the evidence reflects that there were certain demands. Having considered that the evidence of the CSW1/informant herein/the father of the deceased is in progress, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. However, the petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the cross-examination of CSW1 is over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2423 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence and report submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)