Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1869/2026 of SEKH @ SK SAMIRUL AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 25 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L.23. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 1869 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 Pursurah Police Station case no. 80 of 2021 dated 13.06.2021
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.
25.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.23. Rakib (Rejected)
CRM (M) 1869 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 Pursurah Police Station case no. 80 of 2021 dated 13.06.2021 under Sections 326/307/302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
And In the matter of : Sekh @ Sk Samirul & Anr.
……Petitioners. Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Trisha Rakshit Ms. Rajashree Tah Ms. Aishwarya Datta Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty
.....for the Petitioners. Mr. Dr. Achin Jana Mr. Supriyo Mahajan
……for the State. Ms. Afreen Begum Mr. Dip Dutta
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioner no.1 is in custody for one year six months and petitioner no.2 is in custody for one year seven months, they have cooperated with the trial and presently 10 witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future, as such, petitioners may be released on bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the complicity of the present petitioners and the manner in which the incident took place. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail.
2 I have taken into account the stage of the case. State also submits that they it would take a decision of scaling down the number of witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. As substantial progress has been made at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail as initially their conduct was not appreciable, case being of 2021 and petitioners appeared before the Court on or about February, 2025 and April, 2025 respectively. In view of the observations, prayer for bail of the petitioners in CRM (M) 1869 of 2026 is rejected at this stage. 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.)