Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2029/2026 of RUBEL SK. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 8 October 2026
(266294) 08.10.2026 (AD 10) (S. Banerjee) CRM(M) 2029 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the matter of : Rubel Sk. Mr. Soubhik Mitter Mr. Pritam Roy Mr. Karan Bapuli … for the petitioner Mr.
Court No. 34
(266294)
08.10.2026
(AD 10)
(S. Banerjee)
CRM(M) 2029 of 2026
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023/under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the matter of: Rubel Sk.
Mr. Soubhik Mitter
Mr. Pritam Roy
Mr. Karan Bapuli
… for the petitioner
Mr. Kallok Mondal, Ld. PP
Mr. Aditya Tiwari
Mr. Anurag Sardar
… for the State
Ms. Sujata Das
Mr. Sariful Alam
… for the de facto complainant
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. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties.
2. The prayer for bail has been made lastly on the ground of prolonged detention of the petitioner since he is in custody for one year two months. It is further submitted that a coordinate Bench while refusing the prayer of the principal accused in the month of April, 2026, was of the view that till the evidence of five witnesses as envisaged on behalf of the prosecution are not over the bail payer will not be allowed.
3. It appears from the record as submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that
2 thereafter only one witness has adduced evidence and PW-2’s evidence is going on.
4. On behalf of the prosecution submission has been advanced that since an application under Section 231 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 254(3) of the BNSS) filed on behalf of the accused person, the cross-examination could not be completed.
5. Be that as it may, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the materials from the case diary, the statements made by various witnesses and the recovery was made from other persons, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail at this stage. Hence the application for bail stands rejected.
6. However, the learned trial court is requested to expedite the hearing without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and to fix the schedule of the witnesses chronologically following the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)