Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30877 (CAL)

SAJAHAN @ SAHAJAN MOLLA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1554/2026 · 2026-07-28

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

28.07.2026 Serial no. 278 [G.S.D] CRM (M) 1554 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 Sessions Case No. 26(04)24, corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 01(06)2024, South Port PS Case No. 193 of 2023 dated 10.12.2023 u/s 302 of the IPC. -And- In the matter of : Sajahan @ Sahajan Molla … Petitioner(s) Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Kingsuk Mondal Mr. Dhiman Banerjee Mr. Suman Das … for the Petitioner(s) Ms. Koel Mukherjee … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years six months and only five witnesses till date have been examined out of the 24 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that on the last few occasions, it is the accused person who has stretched the case. Learned advocate added that there are witnesses who have identified the present petitioner in the TI parade. Having considered the time period for which the petitioner is in custody, I direct the learned trial court to, at least, complete the relevant witnesses which the prosecution 2 proposes, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. After the aforesaid time period is over, the learned trial court, if the evidence of the witnesses is not completed, will release the petitioner on bail on the same terms and conditions as it deems fit and proper for ensuring further appearance of the present petitioner in course of the trial. At this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (M) 1554 of 2026 is disposed of. 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