Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1880/2026 of BABLU HALDER @ BABLU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
no. 14 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1880 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 Shantiniketan PS Cse N. 274 of 2024 dated 03.11.2024 u/s 103(1)/3(5) of the BNS. -And-
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.
28.09.2026 Serial no. 14 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 1880 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 Shantiniketan PS Cse N. 274 of 2024 dated 03.11.2024 u/s 103(1)/3(5) of the BNS.
-And-
In the matter of : Bablu Halder @ Bablu
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Santanu Talukdar Ms. Shalini Bairagi
… for the Petitioner(s)
Mr. Anindya Ghosh Mr. Pronojit Roy
… for the State-respondent(s)
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year 11 months and only four witnesses out of the 23 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet have been examined till date by the prosecution. So far as the evidence of the prosecution is concerned, according to the learned advocate, they do not support the prosecution’s case, as such, the petitioner may be released on bail on any stringent conditions. State submits that it is the present petitioner who inflicted the vital blow and there are eye witnsses in support of the same. Having considered that the present case arose out of the previous grudge and the manner in which the petitioner
2 has been described to have participated in the incident do not inspire any confidence of this court to release him on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. However, the State is directed to complete another 10 witnesses within the next six months. The petitioner would, after the aforesaid time period is over, approach this court. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1880 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 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.)