Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/815/2026dismissed

Panchu Samanta v. State Of West Bengal

2026-04-20Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

20.04.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Item No.225 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc.

Rejected C.R.M. (M) 815 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Baranagar Police Station Case No. 353 of dated 05.10.2025 under Sections 310(3)/103/317(3)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In Re : Panchu Samanta ... Petitioner.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Litan Maitra, Mr. Ayan Biswas ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Ms. Sima Biswas ... For the State.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than six months; charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case has been committed to the court of sessions. However, charges have not been framed. Prosecution has relied upon 36 witnesses in order to prove its case which will take considerable period of time. As such, petitioner prays for bail on any stringent condition.

Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that more than 711 grams of stolen gold was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.

I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary and I find that while the other accused

persons were committing dacoity, one person was murdered also. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner has tried to segregate the case of the petitioner from the other accused persons who committed the offence of dacoity and submitted that the present petitioner is only involved in receiving of the alleged property which was the subject-matter of dacoity. Be that as it may, there is heinousness attached to whole of the offence concerned. The case is at the initial stage and till date, charges have not been framed. At this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 815 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed.

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.)