Dismissed¶5

Shah Kalam and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC15 Jul 2025CRM (A)/1977/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail rejected; POCSO Act Section 4; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 137(2), 140(3), 64(1), 115(2), 3(5); forced marriage of minor girl; attempt to take away victim; Manikchak Police Station Case No. 157 of 2025; POCSO Case No.183/2025; Malda; Shah Kalam; CRM (A) 1977 of 2025; decided 15.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of the offence alleged in the FIR as well as the evidence collected during investigation, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail. ¶4

Shah Kalam and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

36 15.07.2025 Ct. No. 32 pg.

¶2

CRM (A) 1977 of 2025

¶3

In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Manikchak Police Station Case No. 157 of 2025 dated 04.03.2025 (POCSO Case No.183/2025) under Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Sections 137(2)/140(3)/ 64(1)/115(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge-cumADJ, 2^nd Court, Malda.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Shah Kalam & Anr.

¶6

...… Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Kazi M. Rahman … For the petitioners

¶8

Mr. Antarikhya Basu Ms. Rajnandini Das … For the State

¶9

Mr. Abhinaba Mukherjee

¶10

The instant application has been filed with a prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the father of the victim has lodged this complaint on an allegation that on a particular date, the petitioners tried to take away the victim forcibly. On being restrained, the petitioners/accused left the place.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the victim is a minor girl and the son of the petitioners married the minor victim forcibly with the assistance of the petitioners herein in spite of previous subsisting marriage of the son of the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

Considering the nature of offence alleged in the FIR as well as the evidence collected during investigation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail.

¶15

The prayer for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.

¶16

All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶17

Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

Shah Kalam and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Kalam and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ayan Purkait Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Amitosh Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sanatan Biswas Vs State of West Bengal

Abdul Rajjak Mondal @ Abdur Razzaque Vs State of West Bengal

Mohammed Alim Vs State of West Bengal

Chittaranjan Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal