17.07.2026 Serial no. 4 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 2927 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 Trial No. 11 of 2021 arising out of Bantra PS Case No. 174 of 2020 dated 03.10.2020 u/s 302/34/120B of the IPC, 1860. -And- In the matter of : Sk. Raja @ Sakal … Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandip Chakraborty Mr. Pritam Majumdar Mr. Kaustav Das Mr. Subham Ghosh Ms. Payel Das … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, ld. APP Mr. P. Karan Singh … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since January, 2024. Learned advocate submits that there is neither any material to suggest the involvement of culpability of the present petitioner nor the prosecution till date has been able to produce any material suggesting petitioner’s complicity. Learned advocate also submits that all the accused persons are on bail; there are 58 witnesses on whom the prosecution has relied upon, but, till date, only one witness has been examined in part. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the court to the case 2 diary. Learned advocate also produces some relevant materials to suggest that the petitioner evaded the arrest in course of the investigation and, subsequently, was arrested in the year 2024 on the basis of an order of proclamation. Learned advocate emphasizes that the petitioner was not available during the investigation. Learned advocate again accentuates that there is another criminal case against the present petitioner which is under Section 307 of the IPC. It is a fact that the trial of the case is progressing slowly, but, at the same time, it is to be appreciated that all the accused persons were not available before the court when the charge-sheet was submitted. It took substantial time to trace out the accused persons and, till date, two of the accused persons are still absconding. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the basic foundational fact - which had been considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench correlating the present petitioner with the crime - is the fire arm which was recovered pursuant to the leading statement of the petitioner and the empty cartridge which was recovered at the relevant point of time in forensic examination, has matched. These facts were earlier considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner. However, the deceased succumbed to death after sustaining bullet injury. 3 I find that there is heinousness in the offence attached. Having considered the gravity of the offence; the consequences of such acts and the antecedents of the present petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 2927 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.)