CRM(M)/2328/2026 of SEKH UJJOL @ SK UJJAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 23 September 2026

23.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.21. Rakib (Allowed)

CRM (M) 2328 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 Dubrajpur Police Station case no.

of dated 21.08.2024 under Sections 118(2)/109/75/3(5)/126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 adding Section 103(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Sekh Ujjol @ Sk. Ujjal

……Petitioner. Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Dhiman Banerjee

.....for the Petitioner. Mr. Aditya Tiwari Ms. Namrata Chatterjee

……for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is similarly situated, as such prays for bail as petitioner is in custody for than two years since 21.08.2024. Till date the examination-in-chief of all the first four prosecution witnesses have been completed, however, the cross-examination of all the witnesses are deferred. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner is one who inflicted the vital blow. I have taken into account the order dated 27.03.2026 passed by this Court in CRM (M) 339 of 2026. The reason for granting bail to the other accused is quoted below: “I have taken into account the genesis of the present offence which relates to a land dispute and raising/construction of boundary wall with the neighbours. There are no antecedents which are available from the case diary so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Some time will be required by the prosecution to complete the evidence........” The same view is reiterated in the present case. Further, it is to be recorded that there are no criminal antecedents as is reflected from the Case Diary as well as the memo of evidence. Having considered that the prosecution intends to rely upon 23 witnesses in order to prove its case and the time for which the petitioner is in custody, including the genesis for alleged commission of offence, I am of the view that petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. As such, the petitioner, namely, Sekh Ujjol @ Sk. Ujjal shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dubrajpur at Birbhum. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date so fixed by the learned Trial Court and shall not enter the sub-Division of Dubrajpur except for the purposes of attending the Trial Court. The petitioner shall further attend the local police station where he would be residing once in a fortnight. The concerned police station will once in a month report the attendance of the present petitioner to the learned Trial Court. Thus, CRM (M) No. 2328 of 2026 is allowed.

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.)