Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29871 (CAL)

GOPINATH DHARA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRM(M)/1439/2026 · 2026-07-23

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

23.07.2026 Serial no. 248 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 1439 of 2026 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. 101 of 2026 dated 15.02.2026 u/s 329(4)/64/351(1) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding to GR No. 258 of 2026. -And- In the matter of : Gopinath Dhara … Petitioner(s) Mr. Kunal Ganguly … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about five months and charge- sheet has already been submitted before the learned jurisdictional court. Learned advocate, as such, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. There are medical documents. Further, the case is based on the statement of the victim who refused to medical. The victim is aged about 33 years and is a married lady. I have taken into account the overall circumstances including the objection raised by the State as to the fear created at the behest of the present petitioner who is the 2 resident of the Birbhum thereby violating privacy of the victim. Having considered the genesis of the case and the materials appearing in the case diary, I am of the opinion that further custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner viz, Gopinath Dhara 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 court in seisin of the case and shall not leave the district of Dakshin Dinajpur without prior permission of the learned court in seisin of the case. Additionally, the petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Balurghat police station except for the purpose of attending the court proceedings. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1439 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record. 3 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.)