Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/241/2026 of HABIBULLAH SHEIKH AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 17 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ct.
6.
17-08-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(ct. no.09) Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
debajyoti Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (partly allowed)
CRM (M) 241 of 2026
In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with New Jalpaiguri Police Station Case No.211 of 2026 dated 06-04-2026
under
Sections
329(4)/324(4)/115(2)/118(2)/109/
74/76/123/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- A n d -
In the matter of : Habibullah Sheikh & Anr.
.... Petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Dutta, Adv.,
Mr. Anirban Banerjee, Adv.
… For the Petitioners.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, learned APP,
Mr. Debanjan Das, Adv.,
Mr. Rajdeep Das, Adv.
… 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. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There are some property disputes and for that reason, this false implication was made at the instance of the defacto complainant who is the daughter of the petitioner no.1. It is also submitted that the petitioner no.1 is aged about 67 years and the petitioner no.2 is a stepmother of the defacto complainant.
2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail. According to him, there are sufficient incriminating materials against both the petitioners. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical report and the 164 statement of the victim. He submits that the investigation is still continuing.
3. I have gone through the materials on record including the medical report. The investigation has progressed to a great extent. Since there is serious allegation against the petitioner no.1, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no.1. The prayer for bail in respect of petitioner no.1 is rejected.
4. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, she is a lady. Although she participated in the alleged commission of the offence, I am inclined to allow her prayer for bail on the following conditions:
a) The petitioner no.2, namely, Sahnaz Khatoon, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
b) The petitioner no.2 shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and/or as and when to be directed by the court.
c) The petitioner no.2 shall not intimidate or threaten the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and shall not commit any cognizable offence in any manner whatsoever.
d) The petitioner shall remain within the geographical limits of the district of Jalpaiguri.
5. In the event the petitioner no.2 fails to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.
6. The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.
7. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
8. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)