Dismissed¶23

Hafijul Bhangi v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC10 Feb 2026CRM(M)/2419/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court; CRM (M) 2419 of 2025; Hafijul Bhangi; bail rejected; Section 439 CrPC 1973; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Garhbeta Police Station Case No. 483 of 2022; POCSO Case No. 94 of 2022; Sections 363/365/34 IPC; Section 376(3) IPC; Section 6 POCSO Act; Section 17 POCSO Act abetment; anticipatory bail cancelled for post-bail conduct; other accused absconding; continuous dispute with defacto-complainant; victim referred to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital; direction to Special Court to split up trial within three months; liberty to renew bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; petitioner at liberty to renew his bail prayer after three months; Special Court directed to split up the trial within three months. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail rejected; petitioner at liberty to renew his bail prayer after three months; Special Court directed to split up the trial within three months.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for more than a year with the other accused persons absconding and no possibility of the trial commencing soon, should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, having regard to the continuous dispute existing between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant and/or their family members, the fact that the other accused persons are absconding, and recent incidents complained of by the family members of the defacto-complainant to the local police authorities.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The learned Special Court is directed to exhaust the process of law so far as the other accused persons are concerned and to split up the trial of the case at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid period (of three months) is over.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC, 1973 / Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (CRM (M) 2419 of 2025) by Hafijul Bhangi, accused in Garhbeta Police Station Case No. 483 of 2022 dated 08.08.2022 under Sections 363/365/34 IPC with Section 376(3) IPC added, corresponding to POCSO Case No. 94 of 2022 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act; the charge against the petitioner under the POCSO Act is under Section 17 (abetment). Although in custody for over a year with the trial unlikely to commence soon because the other accused are evading the process of law, and noting the learned Sessions Judge's observations while cancelling his earlier bail (granted on post-bail conduct grounds) that the victim had been assaulted and was referred to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital, the Court found a continuous dispute between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant's family and recent incidents complained of to the local police. Prayer for bail rejected; application dismissed. The learned Special Court was directed to proceed against the other accused and split up the trial preferably within three months, with liberty to the petitioner to renew his bail prayer thereafter. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; order dated 10.02.2026.)

¶1

10.02.2026

¶2

Serial no. 195 [G.S.D]

¶3

CRM (M) 2419 of 2025

¶4

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 Garhbeta Police Station Case No. 483 of 2022 dated 08.08.2022 u/s 363/365/34 & adding Section 376(3) of the IPC, 1860 & 6 of POCSO Act corresponding to POCSO Case No. 94 of 2022.

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : Hafijul Bhangi

¶7

Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Sudip Kushari Mr. Iqbal Kabir Mr. Prakash Mishra Mr. Arindam Jana Mr. Yuvraj Chatterjee

¶8

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

¶9

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than a year and there is no possibility of the trial commencing very soon, since the other accused persons are evading the process of law. Learned advocate also added that the police authorities have neither attempted to trace out the other accused persons nor the prosecution has put in efforts for progress of the trial of the present case.

¶10

Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant submits that the petitioner was initially granted anticipatory bail, thereafter, he surrendered before the court, but,

¶11

¶12

because of his post-bail conduct, his bail was cancelled. The petitioner, thereafter, surrendered and is in custody.

¶13

Learned advocate for the State submits that the present petitioner’s name is appearing in the FIR.

¶14

Learned advocate for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that so far as the offence under the POCSO Act is concerned, the charge against the present petitioner is under Section 17 of the POCSO Act which is for abetment.

¶15

I have taken into account whole of the circumstances of the case and I find that there were observations of the learned Sessions Judge while cancelling the bail that the victim had been subjected to assault and she was also referred to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital from the local hospital concerned.

¶16

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there are cases which have been instituted at the instance of the defacto-complainant and his relations also and a long standing dispute is existing wherein the petitioner has been victimized.

¶17

Having considered the fact that continuous dispute is existing between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant and/or their family members as also the fact that other accused persons are absconding, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, although, he is in custody but there are recent incidents complained of by the family members of

¶18

¶19

the defacto-complainant with the local police authorities, as such I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

However, the learned Special Court is directed to exhaust the process of law so far as the other accused persons are concerned and split up the trial of the case at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

¶22

The petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid period is over.

¶23

Accordingly, CRM(M) 2419 of 2025 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

¶27