Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1961/2026 of SHYAMAL MANDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 30 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.8 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1961 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 117 of 2025
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.
30.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.8
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1961 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 117 of 2025 dated 21.01.2025 under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Shyamal Mandal
... Petitioner.
Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Mr. Avik Ghosh, Ms. Ankusha Ghosh
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, APP, Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2025, charge-sheet has already been submitted and although charges have been framed, but witness action has not commenced. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that on 16.04.2026 in CRM(M) 542 of 2026, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was refused wherein the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of one of the witnesses viz. Bablu Mondal was relied upon. I find that there has been no change of circumstances. Having considered the same, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
However, the learned Trial Court would ensure that the eyewitnesses are examined within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1961 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)