Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1851/2026 of BEEKAY PASWAN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 14 September 2026
no. 9 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1851 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Dum Dum PS Case No. 355 of 2025 dated 02.11.2025 u/s 127(2)/115(2)/70(2)/351(3)/3(5) of
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.
14.09.2026 Serial no. 9 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 1851 of 2026
In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Dum Dum PS Case No. 355 of 2025 dated 02.11.2025 u/s 127(2)/115(2)/70(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the BNS with sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act.
-And-
In the matter of : Beekay Paswan
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Arindam Dey Mr. Avishek Bhandari
… for the State-respondent(s)
Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. State has produced the case diary. I have taken into account the complicity of the present petitioner; the statement of the victim under section 183 of the BNSS and the fact that the petitioner was subsequently identified in the T.I. parade by the victim. Moreover, the medico-legal examination report of the victim also speaks number of injuries on her body and her private parts.
2 Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the present petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1851 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)