Dismissed¶14

Md. Rubel v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC5 Jan 2026CRM(A)/898/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

This is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail; the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. ¶14

Md. Rubel Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Md. Rubel, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS in connection with Mekhliganj Police Station Case No. 261 of 2024, in view of the claimed change of circumstances (marriage between the victim and the principal accused).

¶9

Court's answer

This is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail; the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶14

Key takeaways

Upon any change of circumstances, the de facto complainant is to take out an application before the learned Special Court; the Special Court may pass necessary directions for recording of a further statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC, and if upon perusal of such statement the Trial Court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner is not required, the Trial Court would be at liberty to exercise its discretion as it deems fit and proper.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNSS sought by Md. Rubel in Mekhliganj Police Station Case No. 261 of 2024 dated 11.07.2024 (Sections 115(2)/351(2)(3), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Sections 6/17, POCSO Act, 2012). Counsel for the petitioner urged a change of circumstances — marriage having taken place between the victim and the principal accused — and counsel for the de facto complainant consented; the State relied on the victim's earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC/183 BNSS before the learned Judicial Magistrate, which prima facie makes out an offence. Tirthankar Ghosh, J. (Calcutta High Court, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, 05.01.2026) held this not a fit case for anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer, disposing of C.R.M. (A) 898 of 2025. The Court indicated that upon any change of circumstances the de facto complainant may apply before the learned Special Court, which may direct a further Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim, leaving the Trial Court free to exercise its discretion if custodial detention of the petitioner is found unnecessary.

¶1

05.01.2026

¶2

Item No.24 Ct.No.3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

¶4

dc.

¶5

Rejected

¶6

C.R.M. (A) 898 of 2025

¶7

In Re : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mekhliganj Police Station Case No. 261 of 2024 dated 11.07.2024 under Sections 115(2)/351(2)(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 adding Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶8

And In Re : Md. Rubel ... Petitioner. Ms. Madhushri Dutta ... For the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Chakraborty, APP, Mr. Ujjwal Luksom, Dr. Arjun Chowdhury ... For the State. Ms. Bipasha Mrug ... For the de facto complainant. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there has been change of circumstances as marriage has taken place between the victim and the principal accused.

¶10

¶11

Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also consents to such submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Chakraborty, learned APP appearing for the State submits that earlier there was a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C./183 BNSS before the learned Judicial Magistrate which prima facie makes out an offence.

¶13

In case there are change of circumstances, the de facto complainant will take out an application before the learned Special Court. Learned Special Court, if required will pass necessary directions for recording of further statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the victim. If upon perusal of such statement, the Trial Court is of the opinion that custodial detention of the petitioner is not required, the Trial Court would be at liberty to exercise its discretion as it deems fit and proper.

¶14

However, so far as the present case is concerned before this Court, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. As such, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected .

¶15

The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM (A) 898 of 2025, is, thus, disposed of.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Md. Rubel v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Rubel v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Petitioner Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Jahir Abbas Khan Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ajfaru Sk. @ Kalu @ Ajfarul Hoque and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Parimal Ray@Roy Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Biplab Mandal@Mahadeb Mandal Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Chaitanya Barman and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal