Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1760/2026 of DESHRAJ SINGH Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 6 October 2026
no. 73 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1760 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Kotwali PS Case No. 954 of 2025 dated 25.08.2025 u/s 103(1)/109/61(2) of the BNS [SC
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.
06.10.2026 Serial no. 73 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 1760 of 2026
In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Kotwali PS Case No. 954 of 2025 dated 25.08.2025 u/s 103(1)/109/61(2) of the BNS [SC Case no. 712(11) of 2025].
-And-
In the matter of : Deshraj Singh
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Sumanta Das Mr. Safdar Azam
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sayak Chakraborti Ms. Shalini Bairagi
… for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Avinaba Patra Mr. Sourav Mukherjee
… for the defacto-complainant
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 31st August, 2025 and since then he is in custody. The narration of the prosecution’s facts and the evidence which has been deposed are contrary to each other, as such, further custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that 11 witnesses have already been examined in this case. State also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is every possibility of the petitioner’s absconding as the present petitioner was, after the incident, arrested near Nepal border. I have taken into account the genesis of the case and the evidence of the eyewitnesses being the mother and brother of the deceased who were available at the time when the incident occurred. Having considered the same, without further commenting upon the materials appearing, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the present petitioners. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1760 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)