Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/242/2026 of PANKAJ KUMAR RAY Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 13 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (ct. no.09)
21.
13-08-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(ct. no.09) Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
debajyoti Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (allowed)
CRM (M) 242 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 Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No.884 of 2025 dated 02-09-2025
under Sections 69/89/318(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- A n d -
In the matter of : Pankaj Kumar Ray
.... Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.,
Mr. Bickey Sharma, Adv.
… For the Petitioner.
Mr. Janardan Periwal, learned JPP,
Mr. Sanjay Mazoomdar, Adv.,
Mr. Avilas Mittal, 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 petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 56 days. Investigation is complete. Charge sheet has been submitted. There is no need for further detention of the petitioner in the custody. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is that there was a consensual sexual relation between himself and the defacto complainant. However, the defacto complainant was major at the relevant point of time.
2. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. However, she has fairly admitted that the defacto complainant was major at the time of the incident.
3. I have gone through the materials on record. It appears that the investigation is complete and as such, there is no need for further custodial detention of the present petitioner. It also appears that there was a romantic relationship between the two major persons. In view of the above materials on record, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:
a) The petitioner, namely, Pankaj Kumar Ray, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
b) The petitioner 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 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 and shall meet the Officer-in- Charge/Inspector-in-Charge of Bhaktinagar Police Station once in a fortnight, until further orders.
4. In the event the petitioner 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.
5. The application for bail is, thus, allowed.
6. As per this Court’s direction, the Inspector-in-Charge and the Investigating Officer of this case are present in Court personally. Their personal appearance is dispensed with.
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.)