Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sarmila Begam Sk @ Sarmila Begam vs Unknown on 23 February, 2026
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
23.02.2026
Serial no. 76
[G.S.D]
CRM (M) 315 of 2026
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 Sessions (P) case no. 63 of 2025 arising out of Raina
Police Station Case No. 379 of 2023 dated 17.08.2023 u/s 363/365/34 of
the IPC corresponding to CBI, SCB, Kolkata Case No. RC
0562024S0004 of 2024 dt. 16.02.2024 u/s 120B r/w sections
363/365/366/368/370/370A/376(3) of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the
POCSO Act and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act 2006 and Sections
3(2)(v) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
-And-
In the matter of : Sarmila Begam Sk @ Sarmila Begam
Khatun @ Maju ki Bibi
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay
Ms. Sadia Parveen
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Amajit De
… for the CBI, Special PP
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody for a period of six months and is
innocent of the charges. According to the learned advocate,
the complicity of the present petitioner as alleged in the
evidence collected by the CBI fails to makes out any case.
It is stated that the petitioner is a maid servant and
had been working under compulsion because of ailment of
her husband having two daughters.
Learned advocate for the CBI submits that the victim
was recovered from Jodhpur, Rajasthan. According to the
learned advocate, there is chain of events and in a part of
2
the chain, the petitioner is allegedly shown to have
complicity.
Having considered the proposition laid down in
[Pinki-vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in
(2025) 7 SCC 314], I am of the view that the offence of
such nature requires much more sensitivity to be dealt with,
the trial of the case has commenced, only three witnesses
have been examined till date.
Having taken into account the gravity of the offence,
at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail when the evidence of the victim till date is awaited.
Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
Rejected.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
approach this court after the evidence of the victim is over.
Accordingly, CRM(M) 315 of 2026 is dismissed.
Report submitted by the CBI be kept with the record.
Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected
from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all
requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
3
