Calcutta High Court
CRM(M)/145/2026 of KARTIK ROY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR on 12 August 2026
Court No.09. (NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH
12 12.08.2026
Court
No.09. (NMD)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE
CRM (M) 145 of 2026
In Re: - A petition for bail under Section 439 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
-
And -
In the matter of: - Kartik Roy
..…Petitioner.
Mr. Arunava Paul
…for the Petitioner.
Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP
Ms. Madhushri Dutta
….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 petitioner is in custody for about 3 years but in spite of sufficient opportunities given to the prosecution the charge could not be framed. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 08.01.2026 whereby the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench directed to frame charges against the accused on the next available date but according to learned Counsel the same was not complied with.
2. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the accused was also responsible for protracting the trial. Therefore, the petitioner’s prayer for bail cannot be granted only because there was a delay in framing of charge.
2
3. I have gone through the materials on record. It appears that although the parties are responsible for not framing of charge, the learned Court is also found to be overwhelmingly overburdened. It is also found that the Case Diary is lying in this Court and hence the charge could not be framed on the last occasion. As the allegation is very serious, I am not inclined to allow the prayer for bail at this stage. But at the same time it is also very much discouraging to note that charges were not framed till date although the charge-sheet was filed three years back. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge is directed to frame the charge on the next date of the case fixed on 01.09.2026 for consideration of charge without giving any adjournment, even if there is any resolution from the Bar, as a special case.
4. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court by the office of the learned Registrar Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri at once.
5. Let the Case Diary be returned to the learned Trial Court at once.
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.)