Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2100/2026 of ACHINTA BISWAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 9 October 2026
ct 33 C.R.M.(M) No. 2100 of 2026 sl no. 40 cm In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Krishnanganj Police Station Case No. 80 of 2026 dated 24.11.2024 Sections 329(3)/117(2)/118(2)/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya
09.10.2026
ct 33
C.R.M.(M) No. 2100 of 2026
sl no. 40
cm
In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Krishnanganj Police Station Case No.
of dated
24.11.2024
Sections
329(3)/117(2)/118(2)/103/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Achinta Biswas
….. petitioner
Mr. Prabir Majumder
…… for the petitioner
Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Ld. A.P.P.
…… 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 accused to have been custody since 24th November, and charge sheet submitted on 19.02.2025. However, the case has not been committed till date. The possibility of trial at the present stage being remote, the learned advocate representing the petitioner seeks for grant of bail.
2. The learned advocate representing the State submitted one of the co-accused was still absconding The case has not been committed. Moreover, the injury report and the statement of wife of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNNS reflected the incriminating statements against the present petitioners directing attributing the commission of the alleged offence to him. The deceased had filed the written complaint which according to the learned advocate representing the State had been construed as the dying declaration.
3. Considering the statements recorded under Section 180 of BNNS and the 183 of BNNS and the gravity and intensity of the alleged offence to be serious in nature and the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
4. Accordingly, the application being CRM(M) 2100 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)