Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2366/2026 of NABIUL SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 23 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.31. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2366 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 Kaliachak Police Station case no. 2097 of 2025 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.
23.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.31. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 2366 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 Kaliachak Police Station case no. 2097 of 2025 dated 24.12.2025 under Sections 137(2)/65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Nabiul Sk
……Petitioner. Mr. Apan Saha Mr. Mosaraf Hossain Mr. Tasnim Ahhamed Mr. Sarfaraj Nowaj
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Arindam Dey Mr. Jnip Bose
……for the State. Mr. Wasim Akram Ms. Sabrina Parveen
......for the De-facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 26th of December, 2025 and there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion, thus, petitioner being falsely implicated, be released on bail on any stringent condition. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that sexual assault has been committed upon a minor of six years of age. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as pointed out that there are
2 criminal antecedents of the present petitioner, although, the said offences are of different nature. Having considered that a minor has expressed her mind before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the same reflects sexual assault upon her, I am of the opinion that at this stage without the victim’s cross-examination it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail. As charge has already been framed before the learned Special Court, learned Special Court is directed to complete the evidence of the victim and other vulnerable witnesses within a period of four months from the next date fixed. At this stage, prayer for bail the petitioner in CRM (M) 2366 of 2026 is rejected. Report and 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.)