Calcutta High Court
CRM(R)/105/2026 of MD ABDI IBRAHIM @ MOHAMED ABDI IBRAHIM @ IBRAHIM ABDI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
no. 6 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (R) 105 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Bagdah PS Case No. 131 of 2026 dated 01.03.2026 u/s 223( a ) of the BNS adding section 21
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.
28.09.2026 Serial no. 6 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (R) 105 of 2026
In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Bagdah PS Case No. 131 of 2026 dated 01.03.2026 u/s 223(a) of the BNS adding section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
-And-
In the matter of : Md Abdi Ibrahim @ Mohamed Abdi Ibrahim @ Ibrahim Abdi
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Santanu Talukdar Mr. Manojit Debnath
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Subhabrata Chowdhury Ms. Shalu Gupta
… for the State-respondent(s)
The petitioner is in custody for more than six months and has been staying in India for the last 20 years on the basis of United Nations Refugee Card. State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was trying to enter Bangladesh from India. There was suspicious movement of the petitioner near the river Kodalia and was intercepted by the BSF. Having considered the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the present petitioner at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.
2 However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months or, in the alternative, release the petitioner on bail on the terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper for further appearance of the petitioner before the court, if required. The learned trial court would adhere to the directions passed above. Accordingly, CRM (R) 105 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)