Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2057/2026 of PRADEEP KUMAR SELVARAJ @ BIR SINGH THAKUR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 8 October 2026
ct 33 C.R.M.(M) No. 2057 of 2026 sl no. 28 cm In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Muchipara Police Station Case No. 217 of 2025 dated 28.12.2025 Sections 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And
08.10.2026
ct 33
C.R.M.(M) No. 2057 of 2026
sl no. 28
cm
In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Muchipara Police Station Case No. 217 of 2025 dated 28.12.2025 Sections 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
Rejected
In Re : Pradeep Kumar Selvaraj @ Bir Singh Thakur.
….. petitioner
Mr. Md. Khairul
Sk. Shabibun Ullah
…… for the petitioner
Mr. Indradeep Das
Mr. Bibaswan Mukherjee
…… 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 be in custody for 10 months and had been falsely implicated in the commission of the alleged offence of an attempt of murder of the paramour.
2. The learned advocate representing the State indicated the injury caused by the present petitioner has been described in the injury report at page 9 of the case diary. It was further submitted the present accused did not have any recorded address drawing every possibility of the accused to flee beyond jurisdiction of the Trial Court and abscond hindering the process of trial and therefore should not be granted an order of bail, as the materials in the case diary indicated grave and severe injuries to have been inflicted upon the victim. Only 2 witnesses out of 13 witnesses have been examined till date.
2
3. Considering the nature of the narrative of the complaint, the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS and the injury reports at pages 3 and 9 of the case diary, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties disregarding any cease work occasioned by the local bar.
5. The memo of evidence filed by the State be taken on record.
6. Accordingly, the application being CRM(M) 2057 of 2026 is dismissed.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)