Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1781/2026 of SIDHU GHOSH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.80 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1781 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Saktipur Police Station Case No. 299 of 2024
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.
07.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.80
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1781 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Saktipur Police Station Case No. 299 of 2024 dated 01.12.2024 under Sections 109(1)/117(2)/118(2)/ 126(2)/103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Sidhu Ghosh
... Petitioner.
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Diptangshu Basu
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, APP, Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee, Mr. Karan Dudhwewala
... For the State.
Mr. Navanil De, Mr. Srinjan Ghosh
... For the de facto complainant.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is similarly situated as other accused persons who have been granted bail. Petitioner claims parity. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that prosecution intends to examine 27 witnesses out of which 25 witnesses have already been examined. Having regard to the advanced stage of the case particularly the fact that within a span of 11 months, 25 witnesses have been examined and the petitioner was initially evading the process of law and surrendered on
27.10.2025 after harsher process of law was issued by the court. Having regard that the case is at the final stages of the prosecution evidence and the prosecution has smoothly progressed with the deposition of all the witnesses, I am of the opinion that it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage when on 09.10.2026, the learned Trial Court has been pleased to fix evidence in respect of rest of the witnesses. State would produce the witnesses on the next date fixed. Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case in spite of any resolution passed by the local Bar. At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1781 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. The respective parties are directed to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)