13 10.09.2025 Ct.No.34 b.das Allowed C.R.M. (M) 1203 of 2025 In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed in connection with Magrahat P.S. Case No. 328 of 2024 dated 01.09.2024 under Sections 312/313/127/103/238/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. And In Re : Suraj Molla ... Petitioner. Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Aditya Tiwari Ms. Namrata Chatterjee Mr. R. Sengupta Mr. M. Majumder ... for the Petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP. Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Ms. Kanchan Roy …for the State. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The order passed on 4th September, 2025 records the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner adds that in one of the earlier cases filed against him, FRT has been submitted. He is on bail in all the cases. Vehemently opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the State submits that the Court cannot rely upon the evidence, particularly the CCTV footages produced by the petitioner in his defence at this stage, moreso, because such footages are not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submits that the CCTV footages may have been tampered with subsequently and do not depict the correct state of affairs. 2 The petitioner was arrested from the spot and fire arms have been recovered at his instance from his house. He has been identified by three witnesses during trial. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authority in State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 SCC Online 1702 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible. I have considered the material on record. There is apparently a discrepancy between the place and time of arrest as stated by the petitioner and the State. The CCTV footage has not been produced by the State in support of its contention. There are discrepancies in the two seizure lists prepared by the investigating officer. The first seizure list indicates seizure of one Samsung monitor, digital video recorder etc. on 2nd September, 2024. The seizure lists does not record any time of seizure. It bears the LTI of the petitioner’s wife. The 2nd seizure list was prepared on 12th September, 2024 and records seizure of an improvised country-made fire arm with live ammunition. The said seizure list does not bear the signature of any independent witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the authority in State of Karnataka (supra), has referred to a report in State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra reported in Criminal Appeal No.1175 of 2018 dated 18th September, 2018 wherein it has been observed that the Court, while evaluating the material, may rely upon other material which suggests conspiracy. 3 Such material will be on record during the course of trial. However, at this stage, prima facie, the Court needs to take into consideration the overall material while considering the prayer for bail. The petitioner is in custody for about a year. He is on bail in the earlier cases filed against him. Witness action has commenced. Considering the overall material on record as well as the discrepancies brought to the notice of the Court, this Court is of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not required and he may be released on bail subject to stringent conditions. Accordingly, prayer for bail is allowed. The petitioner namely Suraj Molla be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas subject to condition that he shall remain within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court but shall not enter the jurisdiction Magrahat P.S. and shall furnish the address where he shall henceforth reside before the learned trial Court, investigating officer and the Officer in charge of the concerned P.S under whose jurisdiction he shall presently reside. The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing fixed by the learned trial Court and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever. 4 In the event the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions as stated above without justifiable cause, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court. The application for bail is thus disposed of. Case Diary be returned. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)