Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/2043/2025dismissed

Rouf Hossain Halder v. State Of West Bengal

2026-01-28Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

28.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Item No. M/L.216 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc.

Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2043 of 2025 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Kulpi Police Station Case No. 445 of 2024 dated 08.12.2024 under Sections 103(1)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In Re : Rouf Hossain Halder ... Petitioner.

Mr. Soubhik Mitter, Ms. Rajnandini Das, Mr. Karan Bapuli ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Saibal Bapuli, APP, Mr. Dipankar Paramanick ... For the State.

Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, Mr. Sital Samanta ... For the de facto complainant.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year 1 month 20 days and till date, there has been no progress in the case. Petitioner is innocent of the charges and he has not been named specifically, neither his role has been dealt with in the documents relied upon by the prosecution, but he has been detained because of previous animosity.

Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is similarly placed as the other accused viz., Md. Sabbir Halder @ Sabir Halder whose bail has been rejected.

Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the case diary and drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have taken into account the overall circumstances and I find that there are overt acts which have been attributed to the present petitioner; the same until and unless are dislodged in course of the evidence, it would be difficult for this Court to come to a premature conclusion. At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

So far as the observations made hereinabove, the same are for the purposes of disposal of the application for bail. Learned Trial Court will independently consider the evidence of the case.

Case diary be returned to learned advocate appearing for the State.

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2043 of 2025, is, thus, dismissed.

All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)