Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1836/2026 of ARGHA DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 23 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.64 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1836 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Khardah Police Station Case No. 516 of 2024
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.
23.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.64
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1836 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Khardah Police Station Case No. 516 of 2024 dated 16.09.2024 under Section 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
And
In Re : Argha Das ... Petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Saha, Mr. Manojit Debnath
... For the Petitioner.
Ms. Suman Agarwal, Mr. Deepak Khetawat
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for two years and all the vulnerable witnesses have been examined. It has been submitted that there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future as prosecution has proposed to examine 30 witnesses. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim under Section 183 of BNSS as well as the FSL report. I have also taken into consideration the deposition of the victim before the court. The Memo of Evidence submitted by the State reflects that 15 witnesses have been examined. Having considered that there are materials to substantiate the case of the prosecution and the prosecution case is progressing smoothly, at this stage, I am of the opinion that considering the gravity of the offence, this is not a fit case for granting bail to the present petitioner. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1836 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)