Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/756/2026 of AMARJIT CHOWPAL @ RAHUL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 10 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.18 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 756 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
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.M/L.18
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 756 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Ekbalpur Police Station Case No. 39 of 2020 dated 07.02.2020 under Sections 342/34/376(d) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
And
In Re : Amarjit Chowpal @ Rahul
... Petitioner.
Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Soumilya Mazumder, Mr. Shounak Mondal
... For the State.
Records of the case reflect that the bail application was filed in the month of March, 2026. The present bail application was repeatedly called, at least the same is reflected from the records. On none of the occasion, petitioner was represented to pursue the bail application. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application be decided on merits. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and produces the case diary. I have taken into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and it reflects from the statement of the victim that the present petitioner is a principal accused who perpetrated the offence. Having considered the ghastly nature of the offence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
2 Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 756 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.)