Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1945/2026 of SUMIT SINGH @ LALU @ LAMBU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
50 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(M) 1945 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Belghoria Police Station Case No. 69 of 2025
28.09.2026
Sl. No. 50
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(M) 1945 of 2026
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Belghoria Police Station Case No. 69 of 2025 dated 09.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109/117(2)/118(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
-And-
In the matter of: Sumit Singh @ Lalu @ Lambu …Petitioner
Mr. Tapodip Gupta
Mr. Suman Bhanja
Ms. Usashi Chattopadhyay
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Amal Kumar Dutta
Mr. Rishav Kumar Thakur
…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 similarly situated as the other accused person, namely, Indal Kumar Yadav, who has been granted bail.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the complicity of the present petitioner is not only overwhelming but arms were recovered at the behest of the present petitioner and in the CCTV footage, he was found to have been fleeing away from the spot. Additionally, it has been submitted on behalf of the State that there are two cases against the present petitioner in Khardah Police Station, one being under
2 NDPS Act and the other under the attempt to murder and Arms Act.
3. Having considered the criminal antecedent of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not similarly place.
4. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Sumit Singh @ Lalu @ Lambu is rejected.
5. With the aforesaid observation, CRM (M) 1945 of 2026 is disposed of.
6. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
7. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)