Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/1923/2025allowed

Jayant Singh v. State Of West Bengal

2025-10-09Hon'Ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury3 pages

09/10/2025 C.R.M.(M) 1923 of 2025 D/L-245 VB Ct. No.7 (Aritra) Allowed In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Dakshineswar Police Station Case No.91 of 2024 dated 03/07/2024 under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Jayant Singh ... Petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pratimpriya Dasgupta, Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Mr. Agnish Basu, Mr. Gourav Bose ....for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Sreetama Das ....for the State Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soubhik Mitter, Mr. Soham De Dhara, Mr. P. Imam ....for the de facto complainant/victim

1. The learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the State of West Bengal and the learned advocate for the victim are present.

2. Mr. Edulji, learned senior advocate, who claims to be the victim of this case wanted to intervene but considering that he is not the de facto complainant in the case, it is

the case instituted by the police authorities suo moto, this Court does not think fit to grant permission to intervene.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that several cases were instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner is on bail all these cases. The learned advocate further submits that without there being any independent finding the police authority has added Section 111 of BNS 2023, implicating the petitioner. The learned advocate further refers to the revisional application filed, challenging the institution of the case where there was stay of further proceedings but the stay no longer exists at this stage. The learned advocate submits that as because there is no further stay with regard to the challenge of the instant case, the petitioner has come with this application for bail.

4. The learned advocate for the State draws attention to the statements of the witness wherein some allegations made against the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is on bail with regard to the other cases and considering the period of detention of one year and two months and the fact that charge sheet has been submitted, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice the petitioner should be released on bail.

6. Thus, I, therefore, allow the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.

7. The petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing of two sureties of Rs.10000/- each, one of which must be local subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. The petitioners upon being released shall not enter into the locality of Barrackpore Police Commissionerate, where the incident took place and the petitioner shall meet the Officer-inCharge of the concerned police station where the petitioner will reside and shall not meet the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not do any act pre-judicial to trial.

8. The application being CRM(M) 1923 of 2025 is disposed of.

9. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)