NAZRUL BAJIKAR v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
CRM(A)/876/2025 · 2026-01-05
Tirthankar Ghosh
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2972 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2972 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
05.01.2026 Item no. 14. Court No.3. Rakib
In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction
CRM (A) 876 of 2025
In Re: An Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Ghoksadanga Police Station Case No. 449 of 2025 dated 01.09.2025 under Sections 137(2)/149(3)/49/115(2)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
And In the matter of : Nazrul Bajikar.
……Petitioner.
Mr. Jaydeep Kantga Bhowmik
Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik
Mr. Shubham Kumar
Ms. Sayantani Das
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP, Mr. Biswarup Roy. ……for the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. Petitioner has been arraigned in connection with the instant case on charges of kidnapping and sexually assaulting the victim. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was a relationship pursuant to which the incident took place and there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there are facts
2 of embellishment which resulted in the registration of the present criminal case. As such, custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. On the other hand learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has produced the Case Diary, drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as the factum that initially the parents of the victim were thrashed at the behest of the petitioner and his parents. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for the relief prayed for. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail being CRM (A) 876 of 2025 is rejected.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)