Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1925/2026 of NAJIM MOLLA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 28 September 2026
38 Court No.35 Rohan (Rejected) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M.(M) 1925 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 265 of 2015
28.09.2026
Sl. No. 38
Court No.35
Rohan
(Rejected)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
C.R.M.(M) 1925 of 2026
In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 265 of 2015 dated 28.07.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.
-And-
In the matter of: Najim Molla
…Petitioner
Mr. Md. Shah Jahan Hossain
Mrs. S. Sultana
Mr. Prithwiraj Biswas
Mr. Souvik Shaw
…for the Petitioner
Mr. Pritam Roy
Mr. Shankar Mukherjee
…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 3 years 6 months. There is no possibility of the trial being concluded and similarly circumstanced accused persons have been granted bail.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that six (06) witnesses more are left to be examined.
3. I have taken into account the materials in the case diary. The case portrays a heinous incident being inflicted upon the deceased. The deceased was not only fired at but his house was also set on fire.
2 The petitioner was evading the process of law for about 8 years. The other accused persons were not evading the process of law for such a long time. Further, it was the petitioner who caused the delay in the process of the trial.
4. Having regard to the previous conduct of the present petitioner and the seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in spite of the petitioner having being in custody for 3 years 6 months.
5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Najim Molla is rejected at this stage.
6. With the aforesaid observation, CRM (M) 1925 of 2026 is dismissed.
7. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record.
8. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)