14.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.06. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 2842 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 Singur Police Station case no. 273 of 2024 dated 26.06.2024 under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code thereby adding Sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code. And In the matter of : Abhijit Mondal ……Petitioner. Mr. Ankit Agarwala Ms. Alotriya Mukherjee .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, Ld. APP Mr. Amarthya Mohan Bhattacharyya ……for the State. Petitioner’s bail was earlier rejected in CRM (M) 801 of 2025 and CRM (DB) 78 of 2025. The petitioner renews his prayer for bail. Mr. Agarawala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner emphasizes on the fact that the petitioner at best can be chargeed under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and there are no materials to suggest that the petitioner was at the spot for alleged commission of offence. Additionally, it has been pointed out that the petitioner is in custody for more than two years and only 7 witnesses out of 21 witnesses till date have been examined. Mr. Gouranga Kr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor along with Mr. Amarthya Mohan Bhattacharyya are appearing for the State. Their appointments may be regularized by the concerned authorities. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the inception the petitioner had knowledge regarding the alleged offence and it was his motorcycle which was used for commission of the offence and has been seized in connection with the instant case. Further, during the period of police custody there were major recoveries which were effected on the leading statement of the present petitioner. So far as the complicity of the present petitioner is concerned, on an assessment of the facts it would be premature to assess the role but the prosecution case is that the petitioner’s motorcycle has been used. Be that as it may, as recoveries has also followed pursuant to the arrest of the present petitioner and the prosecution case is based on factual circumstances which points to the implication of the petitioner from the very inception, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to complete the relevant witnesses within a period of six months. Petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid time period is over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2842 of 2025 is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Memo of evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. 3 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.)