Tahidul Islam v. State Of West Bengal

25.06.2026 Court No.35.

D/L.54.

Rakib (Allowed) CRM (M) 852 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Lalgola Police Station case no. 584 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 under Sections 109/115(2)/117(2)/126(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Tahidul Islam.

......Petitioner.

Mr. Sandipan Maity .....for the Petitioner.

Mr. Somnath Adhikary ......for the State.

Mr. Partha Pratim Sinha ......for the de-facto complainant.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for 125 days, charge-sheet has already been submitted and other accused persons have been granted bail. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the present petitioner is the principal accused who inflicted the vital blows. Learned advocate appearing for the State produces the Case Diary and draws the attention of the Court to the injury reports along with the statement of the witnesses.

Records of the case reflect that prosecution has relied upon 13 witnesses in order to prove its case. Some time will be required to take the trial to its logical conclusion and the petitioner/accused as well as the victim are neighbours.

Having considered that some time will be required to take the trial to its logical conclusion and on stringent conditions prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.

As such, the petitioner, namely, Tahidul Islam shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalbagh, Murshidabad.

If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of district of Murshidabad without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

Additionally, petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Lalgola Police Station for a period of one year. It would be the discretion of the learned Trial Court either to continue with such condition or waive such condition. Accordingly, CRM (M) No. 852 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record.

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)