Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/279/2026 of ANIL INDWAR@MOTA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 19 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
17.
19-08-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(ct. no.09) Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
debajyoti Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (rejected)
CRM (M) 279 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 Bagdogra Police Station Case No.464 of 2023 dated 17-09-2023 under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
- A n d -
In the matter of : Anil Indwar @ Mota
.... Petitioner.
Mr. Arunava Paul, Adv.
… For the Petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, learned APP,
Mr. Gobinda Ghosh, Adv.,
Mr. Shyamal Barman, 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 falsely implicated in this case. The allegation is based on surmises and conjectures. He is in custody for three years. There is no chance of an early conclusion of the trial.
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 who committed the ghastly offence against the victim. The learned counsel for the State alleges that the present petitioner had an illicit affair with the wife of the deceased and pursuant to a conspiracy, the petitioner and the wife of the deceased committed the murder of the victim and, thereafter, threw his body into a well of the house of the victim, taking the advantage of absence of the daughters of the victim.
3. I have gone through the materials on record. The allegation is very serious. I have found that the petitioner was present at the house of the victim immediately before the
2 commission of the offence. The co-accused, that is, the wife of the deceased was granted bail and she thereafter avoided the course of trial and as a result of which, Warrant of Arrest was issued against her. The case could not be proceeded with due to the absence of the co-accused. I have also considered the statements of the daughters of the deceased recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are other clinching materials which are pointing towards the involvement of the present petitioner.
4. In view of such seriousness and the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for bail.
5. The application for bail is, thus, rejected.
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.)