Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27017 (CAL)

DIPAK DAS @ BAPI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/2799/2025 · 2026-07-09

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

09.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.07. Rakib (Allowed) CRM (M) 2799 of 2025 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Haripal Police Station case no. 553 of 2023 dated 09.12.2023 under Sections 420/406/467/468/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of : Dipak Das @ Bapi ……Petitioner. Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Sagar Saha ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years four months. The offences complained of are being tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly. Out of 23 witnesses 4 witnesses have already been examined. Mr. Sagar Saha, learned advocate appearing for the State. His appointment may be regularized by the concerned authorities. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail. I have taken into account the period of detention of the present petitioner. Although, the facts of the case relate to a job scam and there are specific accusations against the petitioner but without entering into the merits of the case, only the ground of period of detention of the present petitioner, I am inclined to release 2 the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. As such, the petitioner, namely, Dipak Das @ Bapi shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore, Hooghly. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of district of Hooghly without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. Thus, CRM (M) No. 2799 of 2025 is allowed. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)