Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2117/2026 of MASIAR RAHAMAN @ MASIAR RAHAMAN MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 21 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.639 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2117 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
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.
21.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.639
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2117 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Amdanga Police Station Case No. 79 of 2022 dated 05.03.2022 under Sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
And
In Re : Masiar Rahaman alias Masiar Rahaman Mondal ... Petitioner.
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S. S. Saha
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Subhendu Sinha Roy, Ms. Supriya Mahajan
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for four years six months and in spite of earlier directions passed by this Court, till date only eight witnesses have been examined out of 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution in order to prove its case. As such, there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail. Be that as it may, I have taken into account that there is a systematic delay in the present case. There is lack of prosecution efforts for bringing the witnesses also. However, having considered that the present is a case under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code where the victim is below 12
2 years, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail considering the materials which are available with the prosecution. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. State would take a call as to whether in such cases of heinous offences, there is any urgency or not and understand that for indefinite period a person cannot be kept behind the bars. Earlier directions have turned to be futile. As such, no directions are passed. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the period of six months from date. If there is no substantial progress, Court will be compelled to take a decision on the next occasion when the petitioner approaches this Court. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2117 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. 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.)