Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1027/2026 of SK MAFIJUDDIN CHOWDHURY @ SK MAIFUJUDDIN CHOWDHURY @ BABAI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 5 October 2026
Court No.35. M/L. 41. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1027 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Nandigram Police Station Case No. 231 of 2025 dated April 17,
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.
05.10.2026 Court No.35. M/L. 41. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (M) 1027 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Nandigram Police Station Case No. 231 of 2025 dated April 17, 2025 under Sections 109/103(1)/3(5) of the BNS.
And In the matter of : Sk. Mafijuddin Chowdhury @ Sk. Maifujuddin Chowdhury @ Babai
……Petitioner.
Mr. Navanil De
Mr. Subhrajit Dey
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Brojesh Jha, APP
Mr. Narayan Debnath
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the earlier rejection in CRM (M) 2522 of 2025 there has been no progress in the case. It has been contended that the earlier order of splitting up of the trial by this court was communicated to the learned Magistrate on 17.02.2026.
I have taken into account the fact of the subsequent orders which are up to 30.03.2026. The process of execution return in respect of the warrant of arrest which is a process of splitting up of the trial was in progress at the relevant point of time.
2
State has submitted a report. Report reflects that one of the accused has been arrested from Gangarampur, PS Bishnupur and also the offending vehicle was also seized.
Having considered that the petitioner was involved in an offence where the accusation were for lifting of bulls and the driver of the police vehicle was run over intentionally, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail as there has been no further change of circumstances since the last order of rejection.
Accordingly, CRM (M) 1027 of 2026 is rejected.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)