IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRM (DB) 246 of 2025 Oliulla Mallick @ Sajijul @ Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee & The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray For the Petitioner : Mr. Asraf Mondal, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Faria Hossain, Adv. Ms. Rita Datta, Adv. For the defacto complainant : Mr. Kalyan Ghosh CAV On : 20.02.2025 Judgment On : 27.03.2025 Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :- 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than 4 (four) years. Only 11 (eleven) out of 37 (thirty seven) chargesheet named witnesses have been examined. In view of such huge number of prosecution witnesses there is little chance of an early conclusion of the trial. There is not a single eye witness who deposed before the court 2 that he/she saw the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. There was no eye witness. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner, if enlarged on bail shall comply with all the relevant conditions that would be imposed upon him. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. According to her, there are sufficient incriminating materials showing that the present petitioner was last seen with the victim when she was returning from her relative’s house. The said fact has been brought on record at the time of deposition by the witnesses. There are also materials showing that the petitioner used to tease the victim few months ago and when the petitioner was refused by the victim to accept his love proposal, he threatened the victim with dire consequences. The said facts have been deposed by the eye witnesses before the court. During trial of the case, the covid pandemic intervened and for which, there was some delay on the part of the prosecution. However, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution will complete the trial as soon as possible. 3. We have considered the materials on record including the case diary. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned State counsel that as the covid pandemic intervened during the trial of the case, they could not proceed with the trial of the case as expeditiously as expected. But from the record, it is revealed that charge was framed on 22.12.2021 and first date for examination of the witness was fixed on 18.01.2022 that was even after the end of second wave of the covid. Thereafter, at least 30 (thirty) dates 3 were fixed for prosecution evidence but only 11 (eleven) out of 37 (thirty seven) witnesses have been examined. Needless to mention that the fundamental right of an accused to speedy trial has, unquestionably, been given a ‘place of pride’ in our Indian judicial system and ordinarily no other consideration can be higher than the fundamental right of the accused as stated above. An accused cannot be kept in incarceration for an indefinite period. The prosecution may have an iron cast case against the accused but the prosecution is under a duty to bring the trial to its logical conclusion by producing all the evidences within a reasonable period of time. The prosecution wants to examine 26 (twenty six) more witnesses to prove its case against the petitioner and as such there is no chance of an early conclusion of the trial. It is anybody’s guess when the trial would conclude. Considering the concept of personal liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we are constrained to enlarge the accused on bail on certain conditions. 4. The accused may find bail of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each, out of which one must be local subject to satisfaction of ACJM, Tehatta, Nadia and also on condition that the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Palashipara Police Station, Nadia, excepting for the purpose of attending court and shall intimate his local address where he will currently reside to the concerned I.O. and the Learned Trial Court and he shall meet the I.C. of the local police station where he will reside, twice in a week until further orders and shall 4 not intimidate and/or influence any witness in connection with this case and shall attend the court on each and every date of hearing without fail. 5. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as mentioned above, his bail shall be cancelled by the Learned Trial Court in accordance with law without any further reference to this court. 6. CRM (DB) 246 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of. The case diary be returned. 7. Urgent photostat certified copies of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities. I Agree. (APURBA SINHA RAY, J.) (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)