Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/2759/2025rejected

Ebrahim Sk v. State Of West Bengal

2025-12-23Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh3 pages

23.12.2025 Serial no. 92 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 2759 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 Ranitala PS Case No. 382 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 u/s 126(1)/118(2)/103(1)/109/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding to GR Case No. 2651 of 2025. -AndIn the matter of : Ebrahim Sk.

... Petitioner(s) Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Mr. Debapriya Samanta Md. Jannat ul Firdous Mr. Rajsekhar Hota Mr. Akash Kr. Chakraborty ... for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Bitoshok Banerjee Ms. Madhumita Basak ... for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for six months and he was never named as the principal assailant who was responsible for death of one brother and injury of the two brothers. It has also been submitted that the ladies who were similarly placed have already been granted bail. Learned advocate also added that the petitioner has no specific role in the case for which he may be further detained.

I find that the petitioner along with the others were involved in assaulting the injured as also the deceased. However, so far as the statement of the witnesses is

concerned, the same reflects that the petitioner may not be the principal accused but is involved in the overall circumstances, which cannot be ignored.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and has referred to the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the injured witnesses.

Having regard to the fact that charges are yet to be framed and the delay is because of the two persons absconding, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected.

However, the learned Magistrate is directed to split up the trial and, if required, thereafter, commit the case to the court of Sessions.

The petitioner would approach this court after charges are framed by the learned trial court. Accordingly, CRM(M) 2759 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.)