Calcutta High CourtCRM(M)/33/2026rejected

Mustafijur Rahaman @ Mostafijur Rahaman @ Mojibur @ Mostafijur Rahaman @ Majibur v. State Of West Bengal

2026-01-27Hon'Ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh2 pages

27.01.2026 Court No.35.

D/L.33.

Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 33 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 arising out of Chanchal Police Station case no. 881 of 2025 dated 085.07.2025 under Sections 85/103(1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Mustafijur Rahaman @ Mostafijur Rahaman @ Mojibur @ Mostafijur Rahaman @ Majibur ......Petitioner.

Mr. Kallol Mondal, Sr. Adv, Mr. Krishan Roy Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Raja Das ......for the Petitioner.

Ms. Rituparna Ghosh De Ms. Debarshi Basu ......for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in innocent of the charges and is in custody for 222 days. According to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that rest of the accused persons are on bail and further detention of the petitioner is unwarranted, as such he may be released on bail on any stringent conditions.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and earlier submitted the Case Diary before this Court. I have taken into account the accusations so far as the present petitioner is concerned wherein each of the witnesses have stated regarding the pillow being pressed upon the face of the deceased, ultimately resulting in death. There are injuries on the

lips as is seen from the post-mortem report, although, the doctor could not arrive at a final opinion.

Having considered the fact that there was a matrimonial discord between the deceased and the present petitioner and primarily there are circumstances which suggest against the present petitioner, I am of the view that at this stage when the case has not been committed to the Court of Sessions, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 33 of 2026 is rejected.

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

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)