Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2415/2026 of SHIB PRASAD HAZRA @ SHIBU HAZRA @ SHIB PRASAD Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 8 October 2026
No. 34 nb CRM (M) 2415 of 2026 In Re.: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Corresponding to Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. -And- In the matter of : Shib Prasad Hazra @ Shibu Hazra @ Shib Prasad ...… Petitioner. Mr. Mritunjay Chatterjee, Ms.
08.10.2026
Item No.11
Ct. No. 34
nb
CRM (M) 2415 of 2026
In Re.: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Corresponding to Section 483 of the B.N.S.S.
-And-
In the matter of: Shib Prasad Hazra @ Shibu Hazra @
Shib Prasad
...… Petitioner.
Mr. Mritunjay Chatterjee,
Ms. Suchismita Chakraborty,
Mr. Anirndam Poali,
..… For the Petitioner.
Ms. Manasi Roy,
…… For the de facto complainant.
Dr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P.,
Mr. Aditya Tiwari,
Mr. Kaustav Shome,
Mr. Deepak Khetawaat,
..…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. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to political rivalry, the present petitioner has been false implicated in the instant case. This application has been filed for renewal of prayer of bail on the ground that he is in custody for more than two years and eight months. That apart, there is serious inconsistencies in the statement recorded by the present victim as well as evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court, which clearly established, mala fide, in this case.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor raises strong objection.
3. On careful perusal of the entire materials on record and on going through the Case Diary, the statement recorded by the witnesses as well as statement recorded by the victim and more so, the evidence adduced before the Trial Court, some inconsistencies are found but the nature of allegation, which is serious enough and as of now, only three witnesses have been examined, this Court is not inclined to grant prayer in his favour.
4. On behalf of the Prosecution, it is submitted that they will adduce nine witnesses further.
5. The learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavor to dispose of the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment either of the parties.
6. The prayer for bail stands rejected, at this stage.
7. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
2