Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/256/2026 of BIMAL ORAON Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 19 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
11.
19-08-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(ct. no.09) Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
debajyoti Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (rejected)
CRM (M) 256 of 2026
In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with Matelli Police Station Case No.140 of 2025 dated 26-08-2025 under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/109/103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- A n d -
In the matter of : Bimal Oraon
.... Petitioner.
Mr. Hillol Saha Podder, Adv.,
Ms. Mousumi Das, Adv.
… For the Petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, learned APP,
Mr. Reshab Kumar, Adv.,
Ms. Rajyashree Ghosh, 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year. Charge sheet has been submitted on November 22, 2025 and since then, charge has not been framed. The petitioner is a poor person and was, therefore, unable to engage any lawyer on his behalf in the trial Court.
2. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail vehemently. According to him, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner. There are eyewitnesses who saw the petitioner to commit the crime. However, the learned counsel for the State has submitted one report of GRO, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court Mal, JPG, dated 18-08-2026, which is taken on record. According to such report, on 03-01-2026, the record was received from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, without the Case Diary. On 23-03-2026, none appeared for the accused and also for the State and the P.O. was engaged
2 in SIR duty. On 03-07-2026, the Case Diary was received, but none appeared for the accused person before the learned court. On 14-08-2026, none appeared for the accused person. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that due to laches on the part of the accused, the charge could not be framed.
3. It appears that the petitioner remained unrepresented on a number of occasions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution is responsible for not framing of the charge. May be, the petitioner is a poor person, but he has a right to be represented by the counsel from the State Judicial Legal Services Committee. It was not done here. As such, since the prosecution is not responsible for causing delay in the trial, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail, at this stage.
4. The application for bail is, thus, rejected. However, the Secretary DLSA, Jalpaiguri is directed to see that an advocate from the panel of Legal Services Committee be engaged at once for representing the petitioner in the proceedings.
5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, DLSA, Jalpaiguri, at once for compliance.
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.)