Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/139/2026dismissed

Farid Khan v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

2026-02-16Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

16.02.2026 Court No.35.

D/L. 23.

Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 139 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Narayanpur Police Station Case No. 172/2022 dated 24.11.2022 under sections 376(2)(n)/379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And In the matter of : Farid Khan ......Petitioner.

Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sampurna Ghosh Ms. Sananda Bhattacharjee Mr. Debraj Porey Mr. Saptak Naskar Mr. Debendro Nath Saha Ms. Dibyajyoti Mukherjee Mr. Samyadip Mukherjee ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Aminul Hossain ....for the Respondent No.2.

Mr. Anupam Das Adhikary Mr. Sharequl Haque ......for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 3 years. She is a major and there is a delay in lodging the FIR and hardly there are any materials to further detain the present petitioner. Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the factum of the victim being mentally challenged. To

that effect, the Investigating Agency, in course of investigation, have collected documents to assess regarding the ability of the victim to understand the consequences. However, there are Medico Legal Examination conducted which speaks in tune with the accusations made by the victim. 5 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution and 5 more witnesses are left for examination.

Having considered the victim and the other witnesses have been examined and the present witnesses left, are from the Government Departments concerned, I direct the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months from the date of communication. At this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM(M) 139 of 2026 is dismissed.

Report 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.)