Shibu Ghosh @ Hoi Ghosh v. State Of West Bengal

03.11.2025 Serial no. 35 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 1888 of 2025 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with S.C. Case No. 31 of 2020 arising out of Tehatta PS Case No. 532 of 2019 dated 15.11.2019 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 326/307/302 of the IPC. -AndIn the matter of : Shibu Ghosh @ Hoi Ghosh ... ... Petitioner(s) Mr. Jaydeep Biswas Mr. Asraf Mandal Mr. Kaushik Ghosh ... for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Z. N. Khan Mr. Asif Dewan ... for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Siddhartha Sankar Mandal Ms. Sharmistha Dhar ... for the Defacto-complainant Learned advocate for the petitioner prays for bail on the ground that the petitioner is in custody for five years and eleven months.

State has produced the Case Diary. On the earlier occasion, State submitted that only one witness is left for examination. But, presently, the prosecution has claimed that four witnesses are left to be examined.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as such, has prayed that considering the prolonged detention of the petitioner, he may be released on bail.

Reference has also been drawn to the evidence of the wife of the deceased.

I have considered the complicity of the present petitioner and taking into account the same, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, although, he is detained in custody for a considerable period of time. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

However, having considered the time period for which the petitioner is in custody, I direct the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tehatta Police Station to monitor the trial of the case to the extent that on the schedule date(s) so fixed by the trial court, the prosecution's witnesses should be present.

The learned trial court is directed to ensure that the evidences of prosecution's witnesses are concluded by 31st January, 2026.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to communicate this order to the learned trial court.

Case Diary be returned to the learned advocate for the State.

Accordingly, CRM(M) 1888 of 2025 is Rejected. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta.

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)