Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1932/2026 of GURUPADA SAMANTA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
44 Court No.35 Rohan (Allowed) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(M) 1932 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 209 of 2025
28.09.2026
Sl. No. 44
Court No.35
Rohan
(Allowed)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(M) 1932 of 2026
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 209 of 2025 dated 03.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 103(1)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
-And-
In the matter of: Gurupada Samanta
…Petitioner
Mr. Tapodip Gupta
Mr. Suman Bhanja
Ms. Usashi Chattopadhyay
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Malay Dhar
Ms. Arushi Rathore
…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 1 year 3 months. Charge-sheet has already been submitted and out of sixteen (16) witnesses cited by the prosecution, five (05) witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that the dispute arose on issues relating to property, consequent to which, situation escalated and the deceased was assaulted with bamboo sticks, iron rod, etc.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
3. Having considered that the present petitioner has no criminal antecedents and considering the genesis of the dispute, I am of the opinion that further custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted.
2
4. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Gurupada Samanta is allowed.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner shall furnish 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
6. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date. Petitioner shall not leave the district of Purba Medinipur without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
7. In the event, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as stated above, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.
8. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1932 of 2026 is disposed of.
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.)