Barun Singha Roy v. State Of West Bengal
20.05.2026 Court No.35.
D/L. 16 Kausik (Allowed) CRM (M) 975 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 1088 of dated 03.10.2024 under sections 337/338/336(3)/339/111/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of : Barun Singha Roy ......Petitioner.
Mr. Sandipan Chakraborty Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee .......for the petitioner.
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee .....for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is based absolutely on documents and the petitioner has surrendered before the jurisdictional Court on 2nd February, 2026 after his anticipatory bail was rejected. Petitioner prays for bail on any stringent condition. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the original/forged legal heir certificate could not be obtained by the Investigating Agency. As such, the custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted.
I have taken into account the records of the case. I find that charge sheet was submitted in the year 2025. There has
been no reflection that investigating agency is still investigating the case. The prosecution has relied upon 18 witnesses in support of its case.
Having considered the same, I am of the view that as the case is based on documents and the petitioner is in custody for more than 3 and a half months and the trial of the case would take some time as the charges till date has not been framed, I am of the opinion that the petitioner be released on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.
Accordingly, Petitioner, namely, Barun Singha Roy, shall furnish 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 Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia. If on bail petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date fixed before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of District of Nadia without the prior permission of the learned Court.
It is further directed that in case the police authorities intend to investigate they would be at liberty to seek permission for additional conditions from the learned CJM, Nadia. With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 975 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.)