Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/221/2026 of AMAL ROY Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 12 August 2026
Court No.09. (D.Hira) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH
` 3 12.08.2026
Court
No.09. (D.Hira)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE
CRM (M) 221 of 2026
In Re: - An application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
-
And -
In the matter of: - Amal Roy.
..…petitioner.
Mr. Sandip Guha Roy.
…for the petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP.,
Mr. Kallol Ghosh,
Mr. Arko Sarkar.
… 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. One report submitted by the State in Court today be taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to bail as the complainant remained absent before the concerned Trial Court, at the time of his examination.
3. As a result of which, the proceedings in the Trial Court is being protracted. The petitioner may be granted bail on any condition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures this Court that the petitioner will comply with all the conditions of bail, if allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
6. It appears from the record that previously, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on certain conditions but unfortunately, there was an allegation that while he was on bail, he threatened the complainant and the victim.
7. The complainant had filed CRM (DB) 254 of 2023 praying for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.
8. The Hon’ble Division Bench by an order dated 26.09.2023 considered the allegation and asked the Officer-in-Charge, Pundibari Police Station to investigate the case and subsequently, on the basis of investigation report, the Hon’ble Division Bench has concluded that the accused has not only violated the conditions of bail but has clearly abused and misused the liberty granted to him under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
9. The petitioner has again come up with the present application praying for bail.
10. As the indecent of the petitioner does not inspire confidence to the mind of this Bench, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner at this stage. However, the prosecution should produce the complainant as witness before the learned Trial Court, immediately, otherwise, that would be a good ground for the petitioner to apply for a renewed application for bail in future.
11. The bail application being CRM (M) 221 of 2026 is dismissed.
12. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
13. 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.)