Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/932/2026dismissed

Pintu Mondal @ Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Mahato v. State Of West Bengal

2026-06-30Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

30.06.2026 Court No.35.

D/L.99.

Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 932 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 Kulti Police Station case no. 562 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 under Sections 302/201/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1B)(a)/27/35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

And In the matter of : Pintu Mondal @ Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Mahato.

......Petitioner.

Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Fahad Imam Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee Mr. Saptaswajit Kar .....for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sayan Mukherjee ......for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner's name is not appearing in the evidence of the witnesses and he has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case and he is in custody since November, 2023. Till date only 15 witnesses have been examined out of the 25 witnesses cited by the prosecution. Petitioner as such may be released on bail as there is no possibility of the trial to be concluded very soon. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner was identified in the T.I. Parade and has criminal antecedents. To that effect attention of the Court was drawn to the FIR of Sikandara Police Station, Jamui, Bihar.

I have taken into consideration the facts of the present case where the petitioner has been charged for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also Arms Act. The other case is at Bihar which is also under the Arms Act.

Having considered the antecedents of the present petitioner and the evidence of the case being at a vital stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is dismissed.

However, learned trial Court would expedite the process of the completion of evidence at the earliest.

With the aforesaid observations, CRM (M) 932 of 2026 is dismissed.

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.)