Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51607 (CAL)

KABIUL ALI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(DB)/37/2025 · 2025-01-30

Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

July 07, 2025 15 ARDR IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI Re : CRAN 1 of 2025 In CRM (DB) 37 2025 In Re : An application for relaxation. And Re : Kabiul Ali … applicant. Mr. Hillol Saha Poddar, …for the applicant. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Mr. Subhasish Mishra, …for the State. CRAN 1 of 2025 is an application seeking relaxation in the condition of bail granted by an order dated January 30, 2025 passed in CRM (DB) 37 of 2025. By the said order the applicant was granted bail subject to conditions that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition petitioner while on bail shall not enter into Haldibari Police Station except for the purpose of attending trial in the present case or any other case and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the Investigating Agency as well as the trial court and shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station where he shall presently reside once in a week until further orders. It has been prayed on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is facing difficulty in attending before the police authority regularly and also he has been residing at the house of one of his relatives within the jurisdiction of Mekhliganj Police Station. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that the order granting bail was passed in consideration of the materials in the Case Diary and also when the charge sheet in the case was already submitted. Learned advocate refers to certain photographs contained in the Case Diary together with other materials. It is submitted that the aforesaid directions were passed keeping in view sanctity of the trial. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the materials in the Case Diary, I do not find any justification in the prayer made on behalf of the applicant seeking relaxation of the condition contained in the order dated January 30, 2025. Accordingly, I am not inclined to allow the prayer. CRAN 1 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)