Surajit Mallick @ Suro And ANR v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR

16-08-2024 (ct. no.28) S. De (Rejected) CRM (DB) 1961 of 2024 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

- A n d - In the matter of : Surajit Mallick @ Suro & Anr. .... Petitioners.

Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Ms. Sompurna Chatterjee, Ms. Labani Sikder, ... For the Petitioners. Mr. Subhasish Datta, ...for the State.

Order dictated by Partha Sarathi Sen, J.

1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there were discrepancies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the involvement of the present accused petitioners who are in custody since 2016.

2. While opposing the prayer, learned advocate for the State draws our attention to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, more specifically PW-1.

3. We have meticulously perused the entire materials of the case diary including the statement of the victim as recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. We have also perused the deposition of the victim lady as recorded by the learned Trial Court. We are convinced that there are sufficient materials which go against the present accused petitioners for granting their bail prayer.

4. CRM (DB) 1961 of 2024 is dismissed.

Signed By :

SANDIP DE High Court of Calcutta 19 th of August 2024 11:41:45 AM

5. Considering the long pendency of the trial, we direct the learned Trial Court to take all possible steps to complete the trial positively within three months from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that the time limit as framed by us is to be followed by the learned Trial Court mandatorily.

6. Let this order be communicated by the parties to the learned Trial Court.

( Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)