Allowed¶2

Tapas Barman v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC6 Mar 2026CRM(M)/404/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Calcutta, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench; C.R.M. (M) 404 of 2025; decided 06.03.2026 by Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.; regular bail application allowed; offences under Sections 329(4)/64/351(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (rape); Mathabhanga Police Station Case No. 889 of 2025 / G.R. Case No. 1757 of 2025; charge sheet filed, custody since 02.11.2025; bail bond Rs. 15,000 with two sureties (one local); conditions imposed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs. 15,000/- with two sureties of like amount each (one local), subject to conditions of attending the trial regularly and not threatening, tampering with or intimidating the complainant or family members. ¶2

Tapas Barman Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

¶2

06.03.2026 Sl. no. 5 Ct. No. 6 P.M. (ALLOWED)

¶3

C.R.M. (M) 404 OF 2025

¶4

In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Mathabhanga Police Station Case No. 889 of 2025 dated 27.10.2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1757 of 2025 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathabhanga under Section 329(4)/64/351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

¶5

And

¶6

In the matter of : Tapas Barman.

¶7

…. Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Partha Pratim Sarkar

¶9

Mr. Bappaditya Roy …. For the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Tapan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Chattu Roy

¶11

… for the State

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that allegedly on 22^nd October, 2025 at about 7 p.m. the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon the victim in her house finding her alone. The petitioner is stated to be the cousin of victim’s husband.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was lodged on 27^th October, 2025. It has been submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and petitioner is in custody since 2^nd November, 2025.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. He submits that the victim in her judicial statement has affirmed the case of the prosecution.

¶15

The court has considered the submissions. The victim is stated to be around 23 years of age with two children. The petitioner is stated to be 25 years of age. Both are admittedly known to each other. The investigation is already complete. The charge sheet has been filed. The trial may long time.

¶16

Thus, taking into the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioners are admitted to bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be local, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga subject to the conditions that he shall attend the trial regularly and shall not threaten, tamper or intimidate the complainant or members of the family in any manner.

¶17

This application being CRM (M) 404 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶18

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all usual requisite formalities.

¶19

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

Tapas Barman v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapas Barman v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swapan Kumar Das Vs the State through Sp/Cbi/Acb, Kolkata

Shyamal Das Vs State of West Bengal

Mithun Sutradhar @ Mithu @ Docorbabu Vs the State of West Bengal

Mostafa Mia Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Lakhina Bibi Vs the State of West Bengal

Prem Gupta and Ors. Vs Sonam Gadia