Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30137 (CAL)

MD RAJUAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1234/2026 · 2026-07-24

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

24.07.2026 Serial no. 4 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 1234 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 English Bazar PS Case No. 2473 of 2025 dated 07.12.2025 u/s 179/180 of the BNS, 2023, [GR Case No. 891 of 2026]. -And- In the matter of : Md. Rajuan … Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta Ms. Sofia Nesar Mr. Santanu Sett … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Gouranga Kr. Das, ld. APP Mr. Neel Chakraborty … for the State-respondent(s) Pursuant to the earlier direction, as report has been submitted enclosing ‘Examination Report on suspected FICN prepared by Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Pvt. Ltd.’. I have taken into account the facts of the case where there has been recovery of FICN. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came down to India for the treatment of his wife and has been staying for the last two years. Learned advocate also submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in custody for more than 225 days. According to the learned advocate, the petitioner is a business man. 2 Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail. Be that as it may, prima facie, I find there has been seizure of FICN and the point which has been canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner is a question of facts to be adjudicated in course of the trial. Having considered the quantum of seizure in the present case, I am of the opinion that some opportunity must be granted to the prosecution to adduce its evidence. As such, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. The Investigating Officer of the case is present in court today. His further appearance before this court for the day is dispensed with. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1234 of 2026 is dismissed. Case diary be returned to the learned advocate for the State. 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