Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1064/2026 of IFTIKAR ALAM @ SANU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 5 October 2026
Court No.35. M/L. 42. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1064 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 Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 481 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023
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. 42. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (M) 1064 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 Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 481 of 2023 dated 21.11.2023 under Section 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
And In the matter of : Iftikar Alam @ Sanu
……Petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
Mr. Kaustav Das
Ms. Payel Das
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharjee, APP
Mr. Mukesh Kr. Gupta
….for the State.
Learned advocate for the petitioner prays for further accommodation.
I find that the bail application was preferred on 24th April, 2026. Records of the case reflect petitioner was arrested on 2nd December, 2023. The records also reflect that victim was fired to death.
State has informed that charges were framed on September, 2025 and the delay at that stage was because some of the accused persons were absconding as such time was
2 consumed for execution return of warrant of arrest, proclamation and attachment. Presently, two witnesses have been examined out of 31 witnesses cited in the charge sheet.
Having considered that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years 9 months, I direct the State to complete the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses and all the relevant witnesses within a period of 1 year from the next date fixed.
Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid time period is over.
With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 1064 of 2026 is dismissed.
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.)