Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/1812/2026 of MERY MURMU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 10 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.15 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1812 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No. 332 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.
10.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.15
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1812 of 2026
In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Berhampore Police Station Case No. 332 of 2026 dated 26.02.2026 under Sections 108/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and charge-sheet submitted under Sections 103(1)/61(2)/238/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
And
In Re : Mery Murmu
... Petitioner.
Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Mr. Suman Bhanja, Ms. Usashi Chattopadhyay, Mr. Golam Ahammed
... For the Petitioner.
Ms. Soma Mishra Chatterjee, Ms. Anindita Mukherjee
... For the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than six and a half months and also charge-sheet has been submitted. It has been submitted that there has been no possibility of the trial concluding in near future. As such, petitioner prays for bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the post mortem report. It has also been submitted that place of occurrence is at the residence of the petitioner and the deceased and both of them at the relevant point of time were at the residence. Having considered that the death was homicidal and the deceased was strangulated to death and presently the case portrays a heinous picture, which do not inspire the confidence of this Court to release the petitioner on bail, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, 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) 1812 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.)