Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1971/2026 of KADIR ALAM @ MD. KADER ALAM @ KADER ALAM @ MD KADIR ALAM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.62. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 1971 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Goalpokher Police Station case no. 530 of 2023 dated
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 Court No.35. D/L.62. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 1971 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Goalpokher Police Station case no. 530 of 2023 dated 21.09.2023 under Sections 302/212/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(i)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.
And In the matter of : Kadir Alam @ Md. Kader Alam @ Kader Alam @ Md. Kadir Alam
……Petitioner. Mr. Soumya Nag
.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Brajesh Jha, Ld. APP Mr. Neel Chakraborty
……for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case and other accused persons who have been granted bail are having much more serious participation in the crime rather than the present petitioner who is unnecessarily languishing in custody. Reference has been made to the order of bail passed in CRM (DB) 486 of 2025 and CRM (M) 2400 of 2025. Learned advocate emphasized that so far as the order in CRM (DB) 486 of 2025 is concerned, State of West Bengal challenged the said order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 17200 of 2026, there was no interference by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than one year and there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future as 22 witnesses have been examined out of 33 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. Petitioner submits that only one witness till date has been examined in the last one year.
Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. I have taken into account the evidence of eye-witnesses, particularly, the statement under Section 183 of the BNSS and deposition of the said witnesses before the Court. Petitioner was seen by the eye-witnesses who has allegedly stabbed the deceased after he suffered gun-shot injury. I have also taken into account the memo of evidence which reflects that petitioner has 15 criminal cases against him in the same police station and in the neighbouring police station. All the cases related to offences of kidnapping, dacoity, extortion along with Arms Act. Petitioner resist such submissions by adding that State has been selective disclosure in opposing the prayer for bail and in respect of others such antecedents were never brought to the notice of the Court. Be that as it may, however, when a history-sheeter is before a Court of law, Court cannot ignore the same. Having considered the complicity of the petitioner and the antecedents, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 1971 of 2026 is dismissed.
Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. 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.)