Imran Khan @ Md. Imran Khan Vs State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

Imran Khan @ Md. Imran Khan Vs State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for two years nine months in connection with Special Case No. 307 of 2023 (registered u/s 376/506 IPC and u/s 6 POCSO Act), should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS. +1 more

Court's answer

Having taken into account the materials available from the petitioner, the defacto-complainant and the State, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, and the prayer for bail was rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The trial court was directed to give priority to progress of the case and examination of the witnesses concerned, and to complete the prosecution witnesses (six more remaining) preferably within the next six months.

Key takeaways

If the learned trial court is of the opinion that various applications are filed by the parties, it would be its discretion either to dispose of such application or keep it with the record for final disposal at the time of argument of the case.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS) by Imran Khan @ Md. Imran Khan, an under-trial in Special Case No. 307 of 2023 (Special ST No. 09(01)2024), arising out of Nadial Police Station Case No. 168 of 2023 dt. 06.10.2023, registered u/s 376/506 IPC and u/s 6 POCSO Act. The petitioner had been in custody for two years nine months with hardly any progress in the trial; only three witnesses had been examined and six more were proposed. After considering the materials placed by the petitioner, the defacto-complainant and the State, and noting the defacto-complainant's opposition, the court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail: the prayer for bail was rejected and CRM (M) 2011 of 2025 was dismissed, pending applications (if any) being disposed of. The trial court was directed to accord priority to progress of the case and to complete the prosecution witnesses preferably within the next six months; disposal or retention of miscellaneous applications filed by the parties was left to the trial court's discretion. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; order dated 13.02.2026)

13.02.2026

Serial no. 23 [ G.S.D ]

CRM (M) 2011 of 2025

In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Special Case No. 307 of 2023 (Special ST No. 09(01)2024) arising out of Nadial Police Station Case No. 168 of 2023 dt. 06.10.2023 u/s 376/506 of the IPC and u/s 6 of the POCSO Act.

-And-

In the matter of : Imran Khan @ Md. Imran Khan

Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Aditya Tiwari Ms. Shaila Afrin Mr. Ejaz Akhtar Md. A. Badr Mr. Jamshed Khan Mr. Shakti Shivam Mr. Parvej Islam

… Petitioner(s)
… for the Petitioner(s)
… for the State-respondent(s)
… for the defacto-complainant

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years nine months and hardly there has been any progress in the case.

Learned advocate for the State submits that only three witnesses have been examined and the prosecution proposes to examine six more witnesses.

Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant also opposes the prayer for bail.

In case, the learned trial court is of the opinion that various applications are filed by the parties, it would be the discretion of the learned trial court either to dispose of the

2

application or keep the application with the record for final disposal of the same at the time of argument of the case.

In the meantime, the learned trial court, at this stage, after two years and nine months, would give priority for progress of the case and examination of the witnesses concerned. There are six more witnesses to be examined. The learned trial court would complete the prosecution witnesses preferably within the next six months.

I have taken into account the materials available before this court by the petitioner, defacto-complainant and the State.

Having considered the same, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

Accordingly, CRM(M) 2011 of 2025 is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

3