12. 28.02.2025 Court No.29 (Tanmoy) Allowed IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CRM (DB) 375 of 2025 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with Rajarhat Police Station Case No. 341/2022 dated 11.11.2022 under Sections 328/376D of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of: - MADHAB AGARWAL @ MADHAV AGARWAL @ MADHAV AGRAWAL …petitioner. Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ratikanta Pal …for the petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Mr. Anand Keshari Ms. Sreemoyee Roy …for the State. Mr. Koushik Gupta Ms. Jhuma Sen Ms. Arpita De …for the de facto complainant/victim. Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. A “TRIAL PROGRESS REPORT” dated February 26, 2025, has been filed by Shri Sandip Chattopadhyay, Additional District Public Prosecutor, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. Let the same be taken on record. The report reads as follows:- “With due respect and Honour i would like to draw your kind attention that instant case was fixed on 25.2.25 for further cross examination of PW27 namely LSI Sushmita Kanjilal but she didn’t appear before the Ld Court and an information communicated by mail from DD, Bidhannagar Police Commissionarete addressing to the Ld 1st ADJ at Barasat through the Ld Additional District Public Prosecutor namely Sandip Chattopadhyay on his mail that LSI Sushmita Kanjilal is on maternity leave since 31.1.25 so another date may be fixed for further examination and after that the undersigned placed the 2 matter before the Ld Trial Court. And on the prayer of Ld Defence Counsel the Trial Court fixed the case on 4.4.25 for evidence.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to an order dated July 4, 2024, passed in CRM (DB) 1861 of 2024, whereby, while rejecting the bail prayer of a co-accused person, this Bench had directed the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible but positively by December 31, 2024. He says that the said order has had no effect. Trial has not yet concluded. The petitioner is in custody for two years and four months. 3. We have seen the order dated February 21, 2025, recorded by the learned Trial Court. It is clear from the order that the Investigating Officer being PW27 was present before the Court on that date and she was cross-examined in part. Therefore, we are at a loss to understand the purport of the report filed by the learned Additional District Public Prosecutor to the effect that PW27 is on maternity leave. On the ground of her non- availability, next date for evidence has been fixed on April 4, 2025. 4. If PW27 could be present in Court on February 21, 2025 and be cross-examined, we do not understand as to why she cannot attend the Court on an early date and get over with her cross- examination. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is in custody for a long period of time. The prosecution may have the strongest possible case to secure his conviction. Nobody stands in the way of the prosecution doing so. Indeed, if the evidence against an accused 3 person is so overwhelming, it is all the more desirable that the trial should conclude as early as possible so that the offender can be punished in accordance with law. 6. However, no under-trial accused can be kept in incarceration for an indefinite period of time without taking the trial to its logical conclusion. Our direction for conclusion of the trial by the end of last year has not been complied with. 7. Without touching the merits of the case, we feel constrained to grant bail to the petitioner solely on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner, namely, MADHAB AGARWAL @ MADHAV AGARWAL @ MADHAV AGRAWAL, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24-Parganas at Barasat, subject to condition that the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date of substantive hearing subject to the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 355 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and shall not intimidate the witnesses and/or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that the petitioner, while on bail, shall remain within the territorial jurisdiction of Barasat Police Station (jurisdiction of the Trial Court) and shall furnish his present address to the Inspector-in-Charge of said Police Station as well as to the learned Trial Court and shall also meet the Inspector-in-Charge 4 of Barasat Police Station, in every alternate day, until further orders. 9. In the event the petitioner fails to adhere to any of the conditions stipulated above without any justifiable cause, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court. 10. The application for bail being CRM (DB) 375 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of. 11. Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)