Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1895/2026 of MONA PAUL @ DILIP PAUL @ MANA PAUL @ MANA PAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 18 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.77 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1895 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Mongalkote Police Station Case No. 191 of 2026
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.
18.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.77
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1895 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Mongalkote Police Station Case No. 191 of 2026 dated 02.06.2026 under Sections 117(2)/118(2)/ 109/303(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and adding Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Mona Paul @ Dilip Paul @ Mana Paul @ Mana Pal
... Petitioner.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee
... For the Petitioner.
Dr. Achin Jana, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for 101 days, offending weapon was recovered from another accused and there has been no recovery from the present petitioner. However, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars only for political reasons. 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 eyewitnesses as also the statement of the wife and next kin of the deceased. I have taken into account the version of the witnesses. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that petitioner’s participation at the time of the incident cannot be ruled out. It has been informed that charge-sheet has been submitted before the jurisdictional court. However, because of other accused persons absconding, the case cannot progress. Considering the fact that this is a case under Section 103(1) of BNS, I am of the view that efforts be made to trace out the accused persons by exhausting the process of law. Learned Magistrate in seisin of the case will split up the trial after exhausting the process of law. Let whole of the process be completed at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. At this stage, 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) 1895 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)