Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2195/2026 of EJARUL SK @ RIJAUL SK @ REJAUL SK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 14 October 2026
ct 33 C.R.M.(M) No. 2195 of 2026 sl no. 15 cm In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, newly read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Purbasthali Police Station Case No.25 of 2021 dated
14.10.2026
ct 33
C.R.M.(M) No. 2195 of 2026
sl no. 15
cm
In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, newly read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Purbasthali Police Station Case No.25
of dated
19.01.2021
Sections
341/326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section ¾ E.S. Act and under Section 25/27 Arms Act.
And
In Re : Ejarul Sk @ Rijaul Sk @ Rejaul Sk.
….. petitioner
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed
Mrs. Ghazala Firdaus
Mr. Bani Israil
Mr. Md. Arsalan
…… for the petitioner
Mr. Somnath Adhikari
…… for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted the petitioner to have been in custody near 600 days after his surrendered before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna. The 13 co- accused persons had already been granted bail by the jurisdictional Court. The charges have not been framed and on the ground of parity, sought for grant of bail.
2. The learned advocate representing the State opposed the prayer for bail referring to an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 13th November, 2025 in CRM(M) 2284 of 2025 whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the commitment gets over. Since there is a direct order of the coordinate Bench of this Court, the Trial Court is directed to take steps for recording and proceed with the process of commitment splitting the records as one of the co accused
person is still absconding. The exercise is to be concluded within two months thereafter the petitioner will approach the appropriate forum for granting bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
3. The memo of evidence filed by the State be taken on record.
4. Accordingly, the application being CRM(M) 2195 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)