Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/64/2026 of KRISH ORAON@KRRISH ORAON@SHEK TIRKEY Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 20 March 2026
High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
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.
In the High Court at Calcutta
Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
20.03.2026
Ct. No. 07 S.D. REJECTED
C.R.M.(M) 64 of 2026
In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Matelli Police Station Case No. 133 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024 under Sections 6/14/15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 70(2)/294(2)(b)/351(3) of the B.N.S.,2023. And
In Re: Krish Oraon @ Krrish Oraon
@ Shek Tirkey ...… petitioner
Mr. Anirban Banerjee Mr. Swarup Mondal
…for the petitioner Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Ld. A.P.P., Mr. Bhaskar Das .…for the State
Petitioner prays for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 612 days. The victim deposed at the trial. Victim did not name the petitioner as a perpetrator of the crime. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the deposition of the victim in support of his contention that the victim did not name the petitioner as a perpetrator of the crime. State is represented.
Petitioner is facing charges inter alia of gang rape. The victim is a minor. Deposition of the victim was concluded at the trial. In her deposition, the victim named the various persons who committed gang rape on her. Her version is that the incident was also video recorded. Video of the incident was made viral. In reply to an answer in cross-examination put by one of the accused, the victim stated that after the video became viral, she came to know that one of the persons involved was the petitioner. Victim, therefore, named all the perpetrators of the gang rape including the petitioner. The incident as narrated by the victim is severe. Enlarging the petitioner on bail at the stage where the trial is in progress will not only send a wrong signal to a society given the material on record at this stage, but also is likely to prejudice the trial. In such circumstances, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application being CRM (M) 64 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)