Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/1376/2026rejected

Pappu Ray @ Pappu Yadav v. State Of West Bengal

2026-06-16Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

16.06.2026 Court No.35.

D/L. 47.

Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1376 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 Liluah Police Station Case No. 121/2025 dated 22.02.2025 under sections 118(2)/109/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 25(1b)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. And In the matter of : Pappu Ray @ Pappu Yadav ......Petitioner.

Dr. Achin Jana Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh Ms. Chetna Rustagi Mrs. Darothi Mukherjee ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ranjan Banerjee Mr. Bankim Pal ......for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for 1 year and 3 months. Charge sheet has already been submitted. Charges have been framed and prosecution has relied upon 30 witnesses in order to prove its case. It has also been submitted that another accused namely, Dablu Singh has been granted bail in CRM (M) 2322 of 2025.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and has produced the case diary.

I have taken into account the statement of the injured under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which distinguishes the locus

of Dablu Singh and the present petitioner namely, Pappu Ray @ Pappu Yadav.

Having regard to the statement of the injured and the fact that the case involved firing at the victim namely, Rajesh Singh wherein the bullet pierced through the body of the victim though he survived, I am of the opinion that having considered the locus of the present petitioner, this is not a fit case for releasing the petitioner at this stage.

As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 1376 of 2026 is rejected at this stage.

Petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of the injured is over.

Learned Trial Court would give precedence to the evidence of the injured/victim and his examination be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order.

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.)