Jane Alam Molla v. State Of West Bengal

16.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Item No.31 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc.

Rejected C.R.M. (M) 238 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Magrahat Police Station Case No. 133 of 2022 dated 09.04.2022 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

And In Re : Jane Alam Molla ... Petitioner.

Mr. Joy Chakraborty, Mr. Safiqul Islam ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Mr. Sufi Kamal ... For the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about four years and till date only 16 witnesses have been examined, out of 42 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. Earlier there were directions for expediting the process of trial, but there has been no efforts on the part of the prosecution to take the trial to its logical conclusion. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that 17 witnesses have been completed and examination of 18th witness is in progress. State intends to examine 5/6 more charge-sheeted witnesses.

Having considered the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor which has been submitted by the learned

advocate for the State before this Court, I direct that at this stage, it would not be fit for releasing the petitioner on bail in view of the previous bail application being not only rejected, but the same was done after taking into account the merits of the case being vividly considered by the co-ordinate Bench. Having regard to the fact that prosecution intends to examine 5/6 witnesses, I direct that efforts be taken to conclude the prosecution witnesses within a period of six months from the next date so fixed.

At this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

Opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor submitted by the learned advocate for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 238 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of.

All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)