Shri.Veera Kumar @ Kumar v. State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM(SB)/8/2025 In Re:- An application for bail under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed on 24.11.2025 in connection Sessions Case No. 41 of 2024, FIR No. 28 of 2024 dated 15.06.2024, Police Station Humfrygunj under Sections 302/307/201/212/504/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
And In the matter of Shri Veera Kumar @ Kumar Vs State Mr. D. Ilango ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State November 26, 2025 [AKB] Item No. 2 This is an application for bail by the principal accused person in Humfrygunj case No. 28 of 2024 dated 15.06.2024, under Sections 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
Mr. D. Ilango, learned Advocate has represented the applicant.
The grounds taken up by the applicant are inter alia that, the applicant has been incarcerated for a considerable long period of 529 days; that, after completion of investigation and submission of charge sheet, trial has already been started and vital witnesses/eye witnesses have already been examined; that, the deceased person had the antecedent of being convicted in a murder case, therefore, his conduct is also suspicious; that, from the witnesses' statements as well as evidence so far, it can be noted that it is not the accused person but the deceased person who approached the accused with an intention to cause
bodily harm to the accused and in a process of saving himself without any intention or motive of the accused person to assault the victim, he was compelled to apply force in order to defend himself; that there are previous instances of the victim having threatened the accused person; that the co-accused persons in the case have already been released on bail. Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar, learned Public Prosecutor has represented the State.
He has raised objection to the prayer for bail for the reasons inter alia that the present applicant stands on a different footing than the other co-accused persons already released on bail; that the applicant possessed mens rea and motive for committing murder of the victim; that there are eye witnesses, some of whom have already deposed before the Trial Court and some are still left to be examined; the applicant possessed a sharp cut weapon with himself and hurled the first fatal blow on head of the victim causing amputation of part of the head and the next fatal blow at his neck - therefore, the accused person in a pre-meditated manner with all intentions and preparedness, has committed the crime, gravity which cannot be overlooked; release of the accused person at this stage when many more vital witnesses are still to be examined before the Trial Court, can be prejudicial to the prosecution case as well as safety and security of the witnesses of the case.
Heard the submissions of both, perused the CD as well as the Trial Court record.
In view of the statement of witnesses particularly the eye witnesses, two of whom have already been examined, cross-
examined and discharged by the learned Trial Court, the seizure of the incriminating weapon as well as medical documents including autopsy report, the Court is constraint to find the applicant's direct involvement in commission of due alleged gruesome offence. Nevertheless, the prosecution case is bound to be proved beyond scope of any reasonable doubt before the learned Trial Court. But till then in view of the materials available before this Court as found in the CD and the learned Trial Court's record, this Court is of considered opinion that only the prolong period incarceration or that trial may take some more time to complete, should not be sufficient for the applicant to be released on bail. Some cases are of such gravity to require custodial trial. Unfortunately, the present case is one of those.
This Court while considering the applicant's bail prayer, is also to take into consideration the possibilities of the applicant to evade the process of trial by fleeing away upon being released on bail or probability of his being involved in similar nature of offence yet again. In consideration of the role of the present applicant, as suggested from materials on record such possibilities cannot be ruled out.
On consideration of all the factors as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to allow the applicant's prayer for bail. Hence, the bail prayer of the applicant is rejected. Accordingly, the CRM(SB)/8/2025 is thus dismissed. Let the Trial Court Record be immediately returned. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)