Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1837/2026 of RUKSANA BIBI @ PINKI @ MONIKA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 15 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.19 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1837 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
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.
15.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.19
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1837 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Dholahat Police Station Case No. 499 of dated 30.07.2025 under Sections 137(2)/140(3)/61(2)/96/98/143/144/314 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 6(i)/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Sections 3/4/5/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
And
In Re : Ruksana Bibi @ Pinki @ Monira
... Petitioner.
Ms. Riya Paul, Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Indradip Das, Ms. Sharmistha Das
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 11 months and charge-sheet has already been submitted, but there has been no progress in the case. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. I have taken into account the statement of the victim which specifically reflects the complicity of the present petitioner in facilitating sexual exploitation. Having considered the same, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 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) 1837 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.)