Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1788/2026 of FARUK PURKAIT @ ISMAIL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 22 September 2026
Court No.35. D/L. 9. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1788 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Dholahat Police Station Case No. 173 of 2023 dated 21.04.2023
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.
22.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 9. Kausik (Rejected)
CRM (M) 1788 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Dholahat Police Station Case No. 173 of 2023 dated 21.04.2023 under section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In the matter of : Fruk Purkait @ Ismail
……Petitioner.
Mr. Santanu Deb Roy
……for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, Ld. APP
Mr. Ansuman Bera
….for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2023 and is in custody for 3 years and 3 months. Till date charges have not been framed and there is no scope of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion.
Additionally, it has been submitted that without any trial petitioner is unnecessarily languishing in jail.
State has submitted a report of the Superintendent of Police. Let the same be kept with the record.
I have taken into account the same and I find that on majority of the occasions because of the accused person, the charge till date could not be framed. However, there are contributory delays both by the prosecution as well as the Court not being present.
I have also taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary and I find from the post-mortem report that the lady was assaulted to death. Petitioner is the husband. Having regard to the same, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the grounds of incarceration without the trial progressing.
Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Learned Trial Court is directed to overcome the stage of consideration of charges on the next date fixed or within a week thereafter. No unnecessary adjournment be granted to any of the parties since for more than 3 years 3 months the petitioner is in custody.
Learned Trial Court would give priority to the case for the evidence to proceed.
With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 1788 of 2026 is dismissed. 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.)