Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2341/2026 of ABDUL MANNAN MOLLA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 8 October 2026
Court No.35. M/L.100. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2341 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jibantala Police Station case no. 451 of 2022 dated
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.
08.10.2026 Court No.35. M/L.100. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 2341 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Jibantala Police Station case no. 451 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022 under Sections 376DA of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Abdul Mannan Molla
……Petitioner. Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Karan Prasad Mr. Rajedeep Sengupta
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Kollol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Sayak Chakraborty Ms. Rima Banerjee
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for three years nine months and only 5 witnesses have been examined out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution. Petitioner is unnecessarily languishing in jail as for the past several days no witness has appeared before the Court. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and refers to the materials appearing in the Case Diary, particularly to the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as the medico legal examination report. Having considered so far as the merits of the case is concerneed, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail.
2 However, petitioner is in custody for three years nine months, as such, a last opportunity is granted to the State to complete the rest of the witnesses preferably within a period of seven months from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 2341 of 2026 is dismissed. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)