Allowed

Sk Saddam v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC22 Sept 2026CRM(M)/2055/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, accused of kidnapping and sexual offences against a child under IPC Sections 363, 366A, 372 and POCSO Section 4, had been in custody for four years and four months. Only four of twelve cited witnesses had been examined, and the trial showed no prospect of early conclusion. The court granted bail considering the prolonged detention and lack of antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each; conditions: appear on all dates, not leave South 24 Parganas without court permission, not enter Pragati Maidan PS jurisdiction, report monthly to local SHO until vulnerable witnesses' evidence concludes.

Sk Saddam Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

D/L 612

¶3

22.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 Allowed

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

C.R.M (M) 2055 of 2026 Sk Saddam

¶6

¶7

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶8

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Pragati Maidan Police Station Case No. 106 of 2022 dated 08.05.2022 under Section 363 of the IPC, Charge-sheet no. 136 of 2022 dated 16.07.2022 under Sections 363/366A/372 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. And

¶9

In the matter of : Sk. Saddam

¶10

Ms.	Manasi Roy
Mr.	Kalidas Saha
Mr.	Mukesh Kumar Gupta

¶11

…Petitioner.
…for the Petitioner
…for the State

¶12

Report submitted by the State be kept with the record.

¶13

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for four years four months. Out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution till date 4 witnesses have been examined. There are no antecedents of the present petitioner and there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion in near future. As such, according to the learned Advocate petitioner may be released on bail .

¶14

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail

¶15

but on instructions submits that there are no antecedents of the present petitioner.

¶16

Having considered the period of detention of the present

¶17

petitioner and without further entering into the merits of the

¶18

¶19

case I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.

¶20

Accordingly, Petitioner, namely, Sk Saddam shall furnish bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) and 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas.

¶21

If on bail, petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of District of South 24 Parganas without the prior permission of the learned Special Court. However, the petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Pragati Maidan Police Station and would meet with the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station where he would reside once in a month till the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses is concluded.

¶22

Accordingly, CRM (M) 2055 of 2026 is allowed .

¶23

Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.

¶24

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order

¶25

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶26

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

¶27

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Sk Saddam v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk Saddam v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases