Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2197/2026 of SK SHOAIB Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 7 October 2026
Court No.35. M/L. 84. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 2197 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Bidhannagar Women Police Station Case No. 09/2024 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.
07.10.2026 Court No.35. M/L. 84. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (M) 2197 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Bidhannagar Women Police Station Case No. 09/2024 dated 09.04.2024 under Sections 376/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 06 of the POCSO Act.
And In the matter of : Sk. Shoaib
……Petitioner.
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty
Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Saha
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sourav Bhattacharya
….for the Defacto Complainant.
Mr. Debajyoti Deb
Mr. Ushm Garodia
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years 5 months. Evidence of the victim is over and there has been no improvement in the subject matter of the case as the victim had earlier not narrated the incidents which have been narrated in the present case. Till date 1 witness has been examined out of 12 witnesses proposed by the prosecution.
Learned advocate for the defacto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and emphasizes on the conduct of the
2 present petitioner who has been evading the process of law for a substantial period of time.
State opposes the prayer for bail as there are few more vulnerable witnesses to be examined.
Mr. Debajyoti Deb, learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that the witness nos. 2 to 7 are vulnerable witnesses. Accordingly, learned Trial Court is directed to complete the evidence of 6 more witnesses within a period of 6 months from the next date fixed.
Having considered the merits of the case, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, CRM (M) 2197 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.)