Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37890 (CAL)

XXXXXX v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM(M)/1714/2026 · 2026-09-01

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

01.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.302. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 1714 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Panchla Police Station case no. 197 of 2024 dated 18.06.2024 under Sections 376(2)(f)(n)(3)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. And In the matter of : XXXXX ……Petitioner. Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya Mr. Sourat Nandy Mr. Noonnug Roy .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh Mr. Abhinav Rakshit ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested on 18.06.2024 and is in custody for more than two years two months, evidence of four witnesses are over including the victim girl. There is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future, as such petitioner be released on bail. Additionally, it has been contended that there was a relationship, there is no force applied by the petitioner upon the victim, in spite of the same the petitioner has been foisted with the criminal case. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail. I have taken into account the deposition of the victim as well as the medico legal examination report. Having considered the same, I am of the view that there are overwhelming materials 2 substantiating the prosecution case. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. However, the learned trial Court will see that for indefinite period of time an accused cannot be kept in custody. There are two doctors who have been cited as prosecution witnesses, let the evidence of the said witnesses be preponed, learned trial Court within a period of four months will complete the said two witnesses. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the said evidence of the said two witnesses are over. At this stage, CRM (M) 1714 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. 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.)