Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27392 (CAL)

SAJAL DAS @ MAHANTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/2830/2025 · 2026-07-09

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

09.07.2026 Serial no. 20 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 2830 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 Balurghat PS Case No. 29 of 2023 dated 17.11.2023 u/s 498A/302 of the IPC [corresponding to GR Case No. 87 of 2023, Sessions Case No. 94 of 2023]. -And- In the matter of : Sajal Das @ Mahanta … Petitioner(s) Mr. Kausik Choudury Mr. Dwaipayan Panda … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, ld. APP Mr. P. Karan Singh … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for three years five months and till date 12 witnesses have been examined out of the cited 19 witnesses in the charge-sheet. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail as, according to the learned advocate, the victim/deceased was continuously tortured. The records of the case reflect that the marriage was solemnized 17 years ago and the dispute which escalated the present incident was because of the deceased attending a picnic. The deceased was assaulted with a branch of a tree. 2 Having regard to the overall circumstances including the period of detention of the present petitioner, without entering into the merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner viz, Sajal Das @ Mahanta 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 CJM, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur. If on bail, the petitioner shall also make himself physically available on each and every date so fixed by the learned trial court and shall not leave the district of Dakshin Dinajpur without prior permission of the learned trial court. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2830 of 2025 is allowed. Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record. 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