Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2147/2026 of RAJDEEP RAJAK @ RAJ Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 21 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.640 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2147 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Patuli Police Station Case No. 38 of 2026 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.
21.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.640
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2147 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Patuli Police Station Case No. 38 of 2026 dated 26.01.2026 under Sections 70(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 4(2)/5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
And
In Re : Rajdeep Rajak @ Raj
... Petitioner.
Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, Ms. Sagarika Goswami, Mr. Baibhav Roy
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Mr. Utsav Dutta
... For the State.
Ms. Jhuma Sen, Mr. Samsul Laskar, Ms. Arpita De
… for the de facto complainant.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about six and a half months and charge-sheet has already been submitted before the jurisdictional court. Initial medical did not support the prosecution case and petitioner was of tender age at the time of alleged commission of offence. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the present is a case under Section 70(2) of the BNS.
Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and produces the relevant materials before this Court. Considering the incriminating materials appearing in the case diary, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail till the evidence of the victim is completed before the learned Trial Court. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2147 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. 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.)