Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1387/2026 of AAAA AND ANR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 5 October 2026
48 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(M) 1387 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bhimpur Police Station Case No. 102 of 2026
05.10.2026
Sl. No. 48
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(M) 1387 of 2026
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bhimpur Police Station Case No. 102 of 2026 dated 30.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/351(3)/115(2)/64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 6/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
-And-
In the matter of: AAAA & Anr.
…Petitioners
Mr. Sumanta Das
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha
…for the State
Ms. Ruchira Manna
Mr. Avilash Tripathi
Mr. Anirban Mukherjee
… for the De facto Complainant
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.
1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners were arrested on 31st March, 2026 and since then, they are in custody. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is a delay in the FIR which touches the root of the very case.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.
2
3. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the victim and her family members were threatened at the behest of the present petitioners.
4. I have taken into account the manner in which the victim was forced to accompany one of the petitioners and subsequently, detained and sexual abuse being committed. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected.
6. With the aforesaid observation, CRM (M) 1387 of 2026 is dismissed.
7. Memo of evidnece submitted be kept with the record.
8. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)