CRM(M)/1998/2026 of SK MUNNA @ SK SIRAJ Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 30 September 2026

30.09.2026 Serial no. 24 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)

CRM (M) 1998 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 Contai PS CaseNo. 334 of 2018 dated 04.10.2018 u/s 341, 186, 332, 333, 325, 326, 307, 224, 225, 130, 189, 212, 216, 34, 120B of the IPC

-And-

In the matter of : Sk Munna @ Sk Siraj

… Petitioner(s)

Mr. Surajit Basu Ms. Jasika Alam

… for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Anamitra Banerjee Mr. Utsav Dutta

… for the State-respondent(s)

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was shown arrested on 07.12.2018 and is in custody for seven years nine months. Out of the 21 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only seven witnesses have been examined. State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that they have scaled down the proposed number of witnesses to

16. State also submits that the petitioner is hardened criminal having antecedents. I have taken into account the period of delay which has occasioned in the present case; the report which do not provide the detail of delay and the apathetic attitude of the

State in producing the witnesses. Even the police witnesses had to be brought in by execution of warrant of arrest. An accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period only because State has a perception. State has to prove the case within a period of time. I find that eight more witnesses are yet to be examined which is more than 50% of the witnesses, so far, examined. Having regard to the period of detention of the present petitioner, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner viz, Sk Munna @ Sk Siraj shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Contai. If on bail, the petitioner shall also make himself physically available on each and every date so fixed by the learned trial court or the court in seisin of the case and shall not leave the district of Purba Medinipur without prior permission of the learned trial court or the court in seisin of the case.

Additionally, the petitioner shall stay within the jurisdiction of Contai police station and will take permission of the court if he intends to go outside the jurisdiction of Contai police station. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1998 of 2026 is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. The observations made above are only restricted for adjudication of the bail application and should not be considered as final opinion on the merits of the case. 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.)