Ajay Rang v. State Of West Bengal

20.02.2026 Serial no. 21 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 2695 of 2025 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with ST Case No. 02(12) 2021/SC Case No. 14 of 2021 (Pragati Maidan Police Station Case No. 138 of 2020 dated 14.08.2020) u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC.

-AndIn the matter of : Ajay Rang ... Petitioner(s) Mr. Souma Subhra Ray Ms. Neelam Kumari ... for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Soumik Ganguly Ms. Trisha Rakshit ... for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than five and half years and till date only six witnesses have been examined. The prosecution intends to examine 20 witnesses in order to prove its case. As such, on any stringent condition, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned advocate for the State has produced the Case Diary and refers to the relevant statement of the witnesses.

I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary and the circumstances under which the petitioner was charged for the offence.

Prima facie, I find that the nature of the offence for which the petitioner has been charged and his complicity is of heinous nature.

Having considered the same, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail inspite of the time which has elapsed in the meantime. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of Pragati Maidan Police Station will monitor day to day progress of the case before the learned trial court as, at this stage, further delay may prejudice both the prosecution as well as the accused persons.

Learned advocate for the State will communicate this order to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pragati Maidan Police Station. The learned Public Prosecutor conducting the trial would ensure that no witness who appears in court is not returned without being placed on dock. No unnecessary adjournment be granted to any of the parties and the trial of the case would continue inspite of any resolution of the local Bar.

Accordingly, CRM(M) 2695 of 2025 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. 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.)