Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1783/2026 of EJAJ SK @ AJAJ SEKH @ IJAJ SEKH @ IJAJ SK @ IJAJ SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 10 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.8 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1783 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Malda Police Station Case No. 11 of 2025 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.
10.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.8
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1783 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Malda Police Station Case No. 11 of 2025 dated 04.01.2025 under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and charge-sheet submitted under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, added Sections 140(3)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
And
In Re : Ejaj Sk @ Ajaj Sekh @ Ijaj Sekh @ Ijaj Sk @ Ijaj Sk ... Petitioner.
Mr. Apan Saha, Mr. Mosaraf Hossain, Mr. Tasnim Ahamed, Mr. Sarfaraj Nawaj
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Parmanand Sharma, APP, Ms. Suparna Biswas Mazumder
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner renews his prayer for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail as there has been no new change of circumstances since the last rejection of bail. Earlier there was a direction to renew the prayer for bail of the petitioner after the evidence of the victim is over. However, petitioner complains that victim was not available before the court. Learned Trial Court as well as the Investigating Officer of the case would ensure that the victim is made available for deposition. Let the same be completed by 31.12.2026.
At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court after the aforesaid time period is over. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1783 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)