Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2327/2026 of SADIKUL SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 29 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.491. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2327 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 Kandi Police Station case no. 496 of 2021 dated 20.09.2021
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.
29.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.491. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 2327 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 Kandi Police Station case no. 496 of 2021 dated 20.09.2021 under Sections 376/114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Sadikul Sk
……Petitioner. Mr. Jannat Ul Firdous
......for the Petitioner. Mr. Manas Kumar Das Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokdar Mr. Tushar Sil
.....for the De-facto complainant. Mr. L. Vishal Kumar Mr. Sanjib Das
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier on bail, however, because of mis-advise he has been subsequently arrested and is in custody for about two months. Learned advocate for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for bail. Having considered that the case was registered in the year 2021 and is under the provisions of the POCSO Act, at this stage, I am of the opinion that it would be fit and proper for the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after the evidence the victim is over.
2 To that effect, learned trial Court is directed to split up the trial of the case, overcome the stage of consideration of charges and fix an early date for examination of the victim. Let whole of the process be completed preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed by the learned trial Court. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (M) 2327 of 202 is dismissed at this stage. 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.)