Md Phool Babu v. State Of West Bengal

September 18, 2025 10 ARDR (Rejected) CRM (M) 1197 of 2025 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kasba Police Station Case No. 474 of 2024 dated 15/11/2024 under Sections 109/3(5)//61(8)/61(2)/111(2)(b)/111(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 25/25(2)/25(1B)(a)/27/35 of the Arms Act.

And In Re :

Md. Phool Babu ... petitioner.

Adv. Arnab Chatterjee, Adv. Kailash Tamili, ... for the petitioner.

Sr. Adv. Ayan Bhattacharya, Adv. Pinak Kumar Mitra, Adv. Faizar Md. Zabar, ...for the de facto complainant.

Adv. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP, Adv. Saryati Datta, Adv. Manasi Roy, ... for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 294 days. He has been falsely implicated. He was not present at the place of occurrence. He prays for bail. Learned counsels for the State and the defacto complainant oppose the prayer.

I have considered the material on record.

It is a fact that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident occurred and therefore not placed in the T.I. Parade. However, the mobile phone of the petitioner has been seized and the call detail records of the phone prima facie reveal that the petitioner had several conversations with the coaccused prior to the alleged incident. Contact between the petitioner and the co-accused Afroz Khan on the date of incident has also been

found. Material available in the Case Diary implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence. The petitioner appears to be a co-conspirator in the alleged offence.

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and prima facie role of the petitioner therein, prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

The application for bail is disposed of.

Case Diary be returned.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)