Disposed¶13

Jamal Sk @ Bokul Sk v. State of West Bengal

Bail – Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS

Calcutta HC15 Jul 2026CRM(M)/1218/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM (M) 1218 of 2026, decided 15.07.2026 by Tirthankar Ghosh, J. Petitioner Jamal Sk. @ Bokul Sk sought bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS in Burdwan Police Station Case No. 550 of 2025 under Sections 85/103/3(5) BNS 2023; charge-sheet under Section 108 BNS with 23 witnesses; eight months' custody; bail rejected at this stage with liberty to renew after the charge-consideration stage; State opposed; de-facto complainant represented; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None; bail declined at this stage with liberty to renew the prayer after the stage of consideration of charges is over before the learned trial Court. ¶13

Jamal Sk @ Bokul Sk Vs State of West Bengal — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

15.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.457. Rakib (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (M) 1218 of 2026

¶3

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 Burdwan Police Station case no. 550 of 2025 dated 12.12.2025 under Sections 85/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Jamal Sk. @ Bokul Sk Mr. Manas Kumar Das Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokdar .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Gurudas Mitra Mr. Utsav Dutta ……for the State. Mr. Suman Bhanja Mr. Golam Ahammed

¶6

……Petitioner. .....for the Petitioner. ……for the State. ......for the De-facto complainant.

¶7

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the husband is in custody for eight months. Although, initially the case was initiated under Section 103 of BNS, 2023 but subsequently charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.

¶8

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the witnesses.

¶9

I have taken into account the factum that marriage was solemnized eight years ago and there are accusations against the present petitioner. However, considering that the charge-sheet has referred to 23 witnesses, I am of the opinion some time will be

¶10

¶11

required to take the trial to its logical conclusion, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶12

Petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the stage of consideration of charges are over before the learned trial Court.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 1218 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶14

Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record.

¶15

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶16