Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/2305/2026 of DIPANKAR BISWAS @ BHOLA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 18 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.83 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2305 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Asansol South Police Station Case No. 255 of
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.83
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2305 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Asansol South Police Station Case No. 255 of 2025 dated 26.07.2025 under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet submitted under Sections 310(2)/311/317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
And
In Re : Dipankar Biswas @ Bhola
... Petitioner.
Mr. Samiran Mandal, Ms. Shreyashee Mitra, Mr. Nitish Samanta
... For the Petitioner.
Dr. Achin Jana, Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that till date seven witnesses have been examined, none of the witnesses has named the petitioner and petitioner is unnecessarily languishing in jail for about 14 months. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there was specific recovery of Rs.1,69,000/- from the present petitioner along with incriminating materials which belong to the complainant and/or the place from where the alleged offence was committed. Learned advocate for the State disputes the contention that so far as the seven witnesses are concerned, who have been examined, have been unable to express the complicity of the present petitioner.
Be that as it may, at this stage, I am not inclined to enter into the merits of the issue so far as the recovery and/or seizure lists are concerned. Prosecution is progressing smoothly. Let the spirit and rhythm of the prosecution remain. 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) 2305 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.)