Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2269/2026 of DEBU DHARA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 14 October 2026
ct 33 C.R.M.(M) No. 2269 of 2026 sl no. 25 cm In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Dadpur Police Station Case No. 112 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026 Sections 103(1)/238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. And In Re :
14.10.2026
ct 33
C.R.M.(M) No. 2269 of 2026
sl no. 25
cm
In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Dadpur Police Station Case No. 112 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026 Sections 103(1)/238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
And
In Re : Debu Dhara
….. petitioner
Mr. Dhanjay Banerjee
Mr. Maidul Islam
…… for the petitioner
Ms. R.V. Kundalia
Mr. Saswata Chatterjee
…… 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 petitioner seeks the prayer for bail. The petitioner is in custody for six months and 40 days. The learned advocate representing the petitioner further submits the petitioner to have been falsely implicated in the instant case without any participation on his part in the alleged offence.
2. The learned advocate representing the State referred to incriminating materials on the case diary implicating the present petitioner.
3. The narrative of the complaint, the statement of the wife of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNSS the contents of the postmortem indicated the incriminating materials against the present petitioner being allegedly involved in the offence claimed to have been committed. The instant case is yet to be committed
2 and charges are yet to be framed. Considering the nascent stage of the present proceedings before the Trial Court. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is considered and rejected.
4. The learned advocate representing the petitioner be advised the petitioner to seek for renewal of bail after the vulnerable witnesses have been examined.
5. The memo of evidence filed by the State be taken on record.
6. Accordingly, the application being CRM(M) 2269 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)