Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2060/2026 of XXXX Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. on 15 September 2026
15.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 2060 of 2026 XXXX Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the
D/L 36
15.09.2026
Rohit, A.R.(Ct.)
ct.no.35
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M (M) 2060 of 2026
XXXX
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Haripal Police Station Case No. 544 of 2025 dated 25.08.2025 under Sections 6(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 65(1) of the BNS, 2023
And
In the matter of : XXXX
……Petitioner.
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed
Mrs. G. Firdaus
Mr. Hasan Shams
Mr. Chinangsuk Nandy
Mr. Md. Arsalan
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Sagar Saha
Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay
…for the State
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.
1. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 26.08.2025 and since then he is in custody. Nine witnesses till date has been examined. However, there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion as the prosecution has relied upon 29 witnesses. As such, the petitioner may be released on bail.
3. Learned Advocate for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the witnesses.
4. Evidence of the victim has also been placed before this Court. I have taken into account the oral evidence. Intimating materials appearing against the present petitioner which is distinguishable from others. As such I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
5. However, from the order dated 03.09.2026 I find that number of witnesses to be further examined has been limited by the prosecution.
6. Evidence in this case is progressing smoothly since the last few months. Having regard to the same I direct that the learned Trial Court would complete the said witnesses at the earliest preferably within a period of four months.
7. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M (M) 2060 of 2026 is dismissed.
8. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)