Mr.Saw Thimmu v. The State

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(SB)/7/2025 In Re:- An application for bail under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed on 19.11.2025 in connection with G.R. Case No. 477 of 2025, FIR No.18 of 2025 dated 05.09.2025, Police Station Crime and Economic Offences under Sections 24 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025; Section 50 and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; and Sections 61 (2) (a) of the BNS, 2023.

And In the matter of Mr. Saw Thimmu Vs The State Mr. Manas Ajai Sonkar Mr. Manojit Baraik ... for the petitioner (through virtual mode) Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State November 21, 2025 [AKB] Item No.4 The petitioner has prayed for bail on the grounds that charge sheet has already been filed in this case and against the petitioner the charge sheet has been filed only under Sections under Sections 24 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025; Section 50 and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; and Sections 61 (2) (a) of the BNS, 2023.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner has not been named in FIR and his implication is based on the statement given in the police custody, veracity and legality of which is questionable in accordance with law. He has further submitted that three phone calls which are the basis for implication of the petitioner

here are not to be connected with any alleged offence said to have been committed by petitioner, insofar as the calls are of short duration and the senders/receivers thereof has not yet been identified.

The petitioner has sufficiently been incarcerated, for a prolonged period of 21 days and there is no further necessity for the same, particularly when the investigation has been concluded.

Learned Public Prosecutor has raised strong objection particularly on the point that the international calls made from the mobile of the petitioner are yet to be identified. Part of the investigation is still left, according to him. He has further stated that the petitioner is principal conspirator with the foreign national poachers. In this way he has also pointed out the grievousness of the alleged crime of the petitioner. Having heard both the learned advocates and after perusing the Case Diary, the Court is of the opinion that indeed the nature of offence as alleged against the petitioner is serious. It is further noted that call details of the petitioner's phone is still being investigated into and there is contemplation of filing supplementary charge sheet by the police.

In such circumstances considering the gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner the Court is not inclined to grant bail. The bail prayer of the petitioner is rejected. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)