Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2102/2026 of HASANUR RAHAMAN @ HANCHU @ HACHU @ HASU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 17 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.406. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2102 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 Kaliyaganj Police Station case no. 115 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.
17.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.406. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 2102 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 Kaliyaganj Police Station case no. 115 of 2026 dated 04.03.2026 under Sections 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and adding Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Hasanur Rahaman @ Hanchu @ Hachu @ Hasu
……Petitioner. Mr. Navanil De Ms. Monami Mukherjee
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Subhasish Panchal Mr. Saswata Chatterjee
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a relationship which has been converted into the present case, petitioner is innocent, as such, he may be released on bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary. I have taken into account the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS. Having considered the stage of the case and witness action is yet to commence, I am of the opinion that at this stage, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court after the evidence of the victim is over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2102 of 2026 is dismissed.
2 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.)