Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1919/2026 of PANKAJ ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
35 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(M) 1919 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sandeshkhali Police Station Case No. 118 of
28.09.2026
Sl. No. 35
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(M) 1919 of 2026
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sandeshkhali Police Station Case No. 118 of 2022 dated 26.06.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25/27
of the Arms Act.
-And-
In the matter of: Pankaj Roy
…Petitioner
Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu
Mr. Md. Jannat ul Firdous
Mr. Rajsekhar Hota
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
Mr. Deepak Khetawat
…for the State
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.
1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than seven (07) months and till date, charges are not being framed. Prosecution has relied upon 25 witnesses to prove its case. As such, the petitioner be released on bail on any stringent condition.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the case was registered in the year 2022. Petitioner is evading the process of law and there are four criminal antecedents of the present petitioner.
2
3. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has contributed to the delay in trial, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
4. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Pankaj Roy is rejected at this stage.
5. Petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of at least first three witnesses are completed.
6. Learned Trial Court would expedite the process and complete the stage of consideration of charges and three eye witnesses including vulnerable witnesses be examined within the time schedule recorded above.
7. With the aforesaid observation, CRM (M) 1919 of 2026 is dismissed at this stage.
8. State is directed to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court.
9. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
10. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)