Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2260/2026 of SOUMEN RANJIT Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 7 October 2026
Court No.35. M/L.87. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2260 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 Pathar Pratima Police Station case no. 294 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.
07.10.2026 Court No.35. M/L.87. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 2260 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 Pathar Pratima Police Station case no. 294 of 2022 dated 07.10.2022 under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Soumen Ranjit
……Petitioner. Mr. Kingsuk Mondal Mr. Suman Das
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Arindam Dey Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than four years, the earlier directions of this Court did not yield any result, as such petitioner be released on bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the order-sheets as well as the memo of evidence which reflects that cross-examination of the investigating officer is left. Having considered the final stage of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. It is further directed that so far as the bail application which were previously filed before the learned Special Court (particularly, with regard to the order dated 13.08.2026) would be deemed to be rejected also.
2 Accordingly, CRM (M) 2260 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. 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.)