Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/923/2026dismissed

Sk. Kalo @ Sk. Ajfar v. State Of West Bengal

2026-06-30Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh3 pages

30.06.2026 Court No.35.

D/L. 91.

Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 923 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Kankartala Police Station Case No. 23 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 under Sections 191(2)/191(3)/190/103(1)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

And In the matter of : Sk. Kalo @ Sk. Ajfar ......Petitioner.

Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra Mr. Dhiman Banerjee Ms. Ankita Dutta ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhury ....for the Defacto Complainant.

Mr. Gourangya Kumar Das, APP Mr. Amal Kumar Datta ......for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for about a year and falsely implicated in connection with the instant case because of other issues involved. Petitioner is a businessman and there is no possibility of the petitioner fleeing away from the process of law and the trial would consume substantial time as the prosecution has relied upon 42 witnesses, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned advocate for the State has produced the case diary, emphasized on the factum of previous antecedents of the present petitioner, drawn the attention of the Court to the postmortem report as well as the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C./Section 183 of BNSS of an eye witness being the brother of the deceased.

Learned advocate for the defacto complainant is present and opposes the prayer for bail.

It has been submitted by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties that the trial of the case has commenced. Having considered the materials available in the case diary, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses are over. Learned Trial Court would adhere to the provisions of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and ensure that the evidence of the witnesses are recorded at the earliest.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 923 of 2026 is dismissed. Memo of Evidence submitted 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.)