Calcutta High Court
CRM(R)/34/2026 of BABLU ROY AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 21 August 2026
Court No.09. (S.Mandi) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH
11 21.08.2026
Court
No.09. (S.Mandi)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE
CRM(R)/34/2026
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Complaint Case in respect of P.O.R No. 01/RRT of 2026-2027, (Rapid Action Team Range under Jaldapara Wildlife Division), dated 28.05.2026 under Sections 9/39/49(B)/51(1) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
-
And -
In the matter of: - BABLU ROY AND ANR
..…Petitioners.
Mr. Kallol Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Prajnadeepta Roy, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jaimallya Bhattacharya, Adv.
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Janardan Periwal, Adv.
Mr. Bijay Bikram Das, Adv.
Mr. Roumyadip Saha, Adv.
….for the State.
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. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are in custody for about 84 days. The prosecution report has already been submitted and there is no chance of an early conclusion of the trial and as such, they may be enlarged on bail on any condition. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 03.06.2026 passed in connection with C.R.M.(R) 21 of 2026 when the concerned petitioners were granted bail after 101 days on certain conditions in similar type of case.
2. The learned Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail vehemently. According to him, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners since they were carrying ivory task of elephants which are rare species animal after getting source information. They smuggled the said valuable articles from Assam. The evidence is going on and there is no scope for claiming violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. I have gone through the materials on record. It appears that although this Bench granted bail to the concerned person after a period of custody of 101 days, this case is standing on a different footing since the evidence of the prosecution is started and therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the State that there is no violation of fundamental right to speedy disposal of cases in respect of the present petitioners. It is also found that elephant task was recovered from the possession of the petitioners on the highway in the midst of the forest and there was little chance of availability of the independent witnesses since it was not a crowded or populous place. As the evidence before charge has already been commenced, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioners at this stage.
4. The application for bail is, thus, rejected.
5. The Range Officer is present. His personal appearance is dispensed with.
6. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
7. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)