08.07.2026 Serial no. 17 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 2792 of 2025 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Sessions Case No. 126 of 2023 arising out of Session Trial Case No. 06(10) of 2023 [Kulti PS Case No. 214 of 2023 dated 25.04.2023 u/s 302/120B/201/34 of the IPC and 25(1B)(a) & 27 of the Arms Act. -And- In the matter of : Chotu Kumar Shaw … Petitioner(s) Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Soham De Dhara Ms. Deblina Ghosh Mr. Ankit Mukherjee … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, ld. APP Mr. Bhaskar Seth … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for three years two months and till date only four witnesses have been examined out of the 27 witnesses cited by the prosecution. It has been emphasized by the learned advocate that the delay in the present case is solely attributed to the prosecution and its witnesses and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay as the petitioner is in custody. Learned advocate, to that effect, has drawn the attention of the court to the order sheets of the years 2025 and 2026. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner had a vital role in 2 murdering the deceased. Learned advocate emphasizes that the deceased sustained bullet injuries and the recovery of the fire arms was from the present petitioner and another accused. I have taken into account the heinousness of the offence. Having regard to the same, I am of the view that the time which has been consumed may not have an overriding effect in the present case. However, I find that large number of witnesses in the present case is from the police department. There is no reason to delay any further. The learned trial court would ensure that within a period of one year the evidence of rest of the witnesses is concluded. At this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. The petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid time period is over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2792 of 2025 is dismissed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3