Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1846/2026 of RAFIKUL ISLAM @ RAFIKUL MONDAL AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 23 September 2026
no. 70 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1846 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 Islampur PS Cse No. 323 of 2024 dated 18.06.2024 u/s 447/325/326/307/34 of the IPC
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 Serial no. 70 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court)
CRM (M) 1846 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 Islampur PS Cse No. 323 of 2024 dated 18.06.2024 u/s 447/325/326/307/34 of the IPC adding section 302/34 of the IPC.
-And-
In the matter of : Rafikul Islam @ Rafikul Mondal &Anr.
… Petitioner(s)
Ms. Minoti Gomes Md. Hafiz Ali
… for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, APP Mr. Ayan De
… for the State-respondent(s) Md. G. N. Imrohi Mr. Partha Pratim Sinha
… for the defacto-complainant
Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were earlier granted bail at the relevant point of time when neither charge-sheet was submitted nor Section 302 of the IPC was added. Subsequently, after the section 302 of the IPC was added, warrant of arrest was issued against the present petitioners. Four of the accused persons surrendered, out of which two have been granted bail. The petitioners are similarly situated as that of the accused persons who have been granted bail. Learned advocate for the defacto-complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the injuries are grievous in nature and the victim died after a month of having suffered injuries. State produces the case diary and emphasis on the factum of petitioner’s evading from the process of law. However, I find that the factual aspect relates to a neighbour dispute. Having considered the detention of the present petitioners which is about six months, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the present petitioners is unwarranted. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Allowed. Accordingly, the petitioners viz, [Rafikul Islam @ Rafikul Mondal and Bablu Mondal @ Bablu Sekh] shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned ACJM, Lalbagh, Murshidabad. If on bail, the petitioners shall also make themselves physically available on each and every date so fixed by the learned trial court and shall not leave the district of Murshidabad without prior permission of the learned trial court or the court in seisin of the case. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1846 of 2026 is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. 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.)