Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/2601/2025dismissed

Akshay Mirdha v. State Of West Bengal

2025-12-10Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

10.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Item No.27 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc.

Rejected C.R.M. (M) 2601 of 2025 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, filed in connection with Rampurhat Police Station Case No. 201 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025 under Sections 103(1)/61(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

And In Re : Akshay Mirdha ... Petitioner.

Mr. Somnath Gangopadhyay ... For the Petitioner.

Mr. Avishek Sinha, Mr. Asraf Mondal ... For the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there has been no recovery from the possession of the present petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. Additionally, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody for 224 days and charge have been framed. As such, further detention of the petitioner is unwarranted.

Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that Aadhar Card of the victim was found from the possession of the present petitioner. There is direct complicity of the present petitioner and the manner in which the offence was committed was a heinous offence.

Be that as it may, I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary. The prosecution is directed to conclude the examination of the vulnerable witnesses within a period of six months from date. To that effect, learned public prosecutor conducting the case before the trial court would ensure regarding the availability of the witnesses. If required, support may be taken from the superior officers for ensuring such presence. Prayer be advanced before the learned Trial Court for fixing regular schedule for conclusion of the vulnerable witnesses within the aforesaid time period.

At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 2601 of 2025, is, thus, disposed of.

Learned advocate appearing for the State is directed to communicate this order to the learned Trial Court. 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.)