Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1859/2026 of WASIM AKRAM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 24 September 2026
no. 14 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1859 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Pragati Maidan PS Cse No. 22 of 2025 dated 31.01.2025 u/s 109(1)/3(5) of the BNS [
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.
24.09.2026 Serial no. 14 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 1859 of 2026
In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Pragati Maidan PS Cse No. 22 of 2025 dated 31.01.2025 u/s 109(1)/3(5) of the BNS [ Sessions Case No. 54(06) of 2025].
-And-
In the matter of : Wasim Akram
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed Ms. Ghazala Firdaus Mr. Samrat Kar Mr. Sk. Saidullah Md. Arsalan
… for the Petitioner(s)
Dr. Pradip Banerjee, ld. APP Ms. S. Ghosh Mr. Sanjana JHa
… for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Sadia Parveen
… for the defacto-complainant
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year eight months and majority of the witness have turned hostile. The other accused persons have been released on bail, as such, further detention of the petitioner is unwarranted. Learned advocate added that so far as the overt acts, even if, are accepted to be true but the same are very limited. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there were specific overt acts of the present petitioner.
2 State also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that at present only two witnesses are left to be examined by the prosecution and dates are being regularly fixed by the learned trial court. Having regard to the advanced stage of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1859 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)