Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1767/2026 of GOPAL SIKDAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 6 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.74 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1767 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 770 of 2025
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.
06.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.74
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1767 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 770 of 2025 dated 01.10.2025 under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
And
In Re : Gopal Sikdar
... Petitioner.
Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya, Mr. Asraf Mandal, Mr. Poonnug Roy, Mr. Tushar Shil
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharya, Mr. Amartya Mohan Bhattacharya
... For the State.
Ms. Suchismita Dutta
… for the de facto complainant.
Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State along with the acknowledgement of the private opposite party no.2/de facto complainant be kept with the record. Memo of Evidence submitted on behalf of the State be also kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2025. The materials which have been supplied to the accused after the charge-sheet has been submitted do not reflect an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act has been made out. Petitioner further contends that even there is a difference of narration of facts which has been stated under Section 183 of the BNSS and before the medical officer who examined the victim. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that at the relevant point of time, victim was around 14 years of age and is a subject of sexual assault. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and emphasises on the statements and materials appearing in the case diary. It has been submitted that presently the evidence of victim is in progress. Having considered the stage of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the cross- examination of the victim is over. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1767 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)