MIJANUR GAZI @ MIJAN @ ROHIT SK. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR
CRM(M)/291/2026 · 2026-04-07
Tirthankar Ghosh
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 727 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 727 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
07.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.35
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 291 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 Hasnabad Police Station Case No. 232 of 2023 dated 08.06.2023 under Sections 363/365/376D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
And
In Re : Mijanur Gazi @ Mijan @ Rohit Sk. ... Petitioner.
Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, Mr. Md. Jannat Ul Firdous, Mr. Rajsekhar Hota
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, Mr. Samarjit Balial
... For the State.
Ms. Sumita Sarkar, Ms. Anshu Shaw
... For the de facto complainant.
Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State along with the acknowledgement of the private opposite party no.2/de facto complainant be kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2023 and till date, only five witnesses out of 23 chargesheeted witnesses have been examined. As such, petitioner may be released on bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the
2 statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidence of the victim and report of the medico-legal examination have also been relied upon. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 291 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.)