Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1148/2026 of SUBHAM PAL AND ANR. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 10 September 2026
no. 39 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1148 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 Raiganj PS Cse No. 1 of 2026 dated 01.01.2026 u/s 103 (1)/238/3(5) of the BNS and u/s
10.09.2026
Serial no. 39
[G.S.Das]
Assistant Registrar
(Court)
CRM (M) 1148 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 Raiganj PS Cse No. 1 of 2026 dated 01.01.2026 u/s 103
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.
(1)/238/3(5) of the BNS and u/s 25(i)(a)/27/35 of the Arms Act.
-And-
In the matter of : Subham Pal &Anr.
… Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr Adv. Mr. Abhijit Ganguly
… for the Petitioner(s)
Ms. Koel Mukherjee
… for the State-respondent(s)
Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 1st January, 2026 and charges till date have not been framed. The prosecution has relied upon 38 witnesses in order to prove its case, as such, there is no possibility of the trial either commencing or being concluded within a reasonable period of time. Learned Senior advocate, therefore, prays that the petitioners may be released on bail on any stringent conditions. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the court to the seizure list, postmortem report as well as the statement of few witnesses.
2 On an assessment of the materials appearing in the case diary particularly the postmortem report which reflects that the victim died after sustaining bullet injury and the other attending circumstances as is appearing in the case diary, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the present petitioners at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1148 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 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.)