Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35995 (CAL)

XXXXXX v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM(M)/1294/2026 · 2026-08-25

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

25.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.246 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1294 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Dholahat Police Station Case No. 411 of 2021 dated 17.10.2021 under Sections 367/368/370/354B/ 372/373/376 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 6/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. And In Re : XXXXX Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Mr. Joy Chakraborty ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Anamitra Banerjee ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected when seven witnesses were examined; till date, same seven witnesses have been examined and there has been no progress, not a single witness has been examined after the earlier rejection on 09.12.2025. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits a report which reflects that the accused prayed for recall of all the six victim girls. The same was allowed. Presently, the cross- examination of PW-2 is being done on behalf of the present petitioner. Having considered that there are repeated recall of the witnesses concerned, I am of the opinion that delay in the 2 present case has been contributed by the present petitioner. As such, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in spite of being in custody for 4 years 9 months. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1294 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.)