Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/1921/2025rejected

Raju Molla v. State Of West Bengal

2025-11-14Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

14.11.2025 Court No.35.

D/L. 7.

Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1921 of 2025 In Re: An Application for bail under section 439 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973/Section 483 (1) (b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Swarupnagar Police Station Case No. 128 of 2025 dated 05.03.2025 under Sections 126(2)/103(1)/304(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In the matter of : Raju Molla ......Petitioner.

Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Mr. Atarul Haque Molla Mr. Husen Mustafi Mr. Madhurai Sinha ......for the Petitioner.

Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sreetama Das ....for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 250 days and it has been submitted that there are hardly any legally admissible evidence so far as the present petitioner is concerned. Additionally it has been submitted that the some accused persons have been granted bail and the petitioner as such is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned advocate for the State has produced the case diary. Case diary reflects that there are materials. Learned advocate for the State additionally submits that 7 gold Biscuits were the subject matter for which the offence took place and

the complicity of the present petitioner is glaring from the face of the records.

It has been pointed out that some of the accused persons who have been granted bail are non-cooperating with the learned Trial Court.

I have taken into account the materials in the case diary without going into the merits of the case, but assessing the culpability, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Learned Trial Court would ensure that if on 27.11.2025 the process of consideration of charges cannot be completed within a month from the said date, the said stage be completed by the learned Trial Court.

Steps be taken so that a schedule of 3 dates for the purposes of the case be fixed once in a month so that the trial can be taken to its logical conclusion.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 1921 of 2025 is dismissed. 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.)