Dismissed¶15

Ibrahim Sk @ MD Ibrahim v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Bail – Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Calcutta HC17 Feb 2026CRM(M)/2507/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court; C.R.M. (M) 2507 of 2025; Ibrahim Sk @ Md. Ibrahim; bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 rejected; Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 217 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025; Sections 69/115(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; Sections 4/6 POCSO Act 2012; Section 183 BNSS victim statement; victim below 18, consent immaterial; charge-sheet filed; custody 6 months 23 days; next date 24.02.2026 for consideration of charges; correction of order dated 28.11.2025; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; decided 17.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage, the Court not being inclined to release him on bail. ¶13

Ibrahim Sk @ MD Ibrahim Vs State of West… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

17.02.2026 Item No. M/L.248 Ct.No.35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

¶3

dc.

¶4

Rejected

¶5

C.R.M. (M) 2507 of 2025

¶6

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Rejinagar Police Station Case No. 217 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025 under Sections 69/115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. And In Re : Ibrahim Sk @ Md. Ibrahim ... Petitioner. Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Mr. Anisur Rahaman, Ms. Ankusha Ghosh ... For the Petitioner. Ms. Shaila Afrin, Ms. Ratna Ghosh ... For the State. Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Srinjan Ghosh ... For the de facto complainant.

¶7

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted in connection with the instant case. Petitioner is in custody for 6 months 23 days. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 and her statement before the doctor varies. It has also been submitted that the victim along with the present petitioner fled away. They were married and thereafter the present case was instituted after about a year.

¶8

Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of

¶9

¶10

the Court to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 as also the medical report.

¶11

The relevant period when the victim is alleged to have disappeared with the present petitioner is at an age which is below 18 years. As such, the consent of the victim is immaterial at the relevant point of time.

¶12

Next date has been fixed on 24.02.2026 for consideration of charges.

¶13

At this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected .

¶14

Petitioner will approach this Court after the evidence of the victim is over.

¶15

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2507 of 2025, is, thus, dismissed.

¶16

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that inadvertently in the order dated 28.11.2025, names of the learned advocates for the State have not been incorporated.

¶17

Accordingly, the names of the following advocates on behalf of the State be incorporated in the order dated 28.11.2025 :

¶18

Ms. Shaila Afrin, Ms. Ratna Ghosh.

¶19

Department is directed to incorporate necessary correction in the order dated 28.11.2025.

¶20

Let this part of the order be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 28.11.2025.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23