30.07.2026 Ct. No. 11 SL No.07 Cp CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRA (DB-B) No.4 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 In Re: An application under Section 14A(2) in The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the matter of: Rabiul Islam …..appellant/petitioner Mr. Sudip Guha ……..for the appellant. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Ld. APP Ms. Madhushri Dutta ……..for the State. 1. CRAN 1 of 2026 is an application for condonation of delay. 2. As sufficient reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal has been assigned, CRAN 1 of 2026 is allowed, thereby condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. 3. The appeal is regularized, admitted and taken up for hearing. Service of notice is dispensed with as the State is represented. 4. This is an appeal under Section 14A(2) in The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeal has been filed against the order dated December 23, 2024, in connection with Nagrakata Police Station Case No. 126 of 2024 dated 07.10.2024, corresponding to Special Case No. 07 of 2024 which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court, (under SC and ST Act), 1st Court, Jalpaiguri. 5. The appellant submits that he has been incarcerated for almost two years although the High Court had directed the conclusion of the trial within October 31, 2025. The trial is yet to be completed. Some of the witnesses are yet to be examined. Under such circumstances, the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India should be applied and the appellant should be enlarged on bail. The liberty of the appellant should not be curtailed over a prolonged period specially as the progress of the trial was very slow. It is also submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and such dilatory method has been adopted by the prosecution as they would ultimately be unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer and submits a status report which shows that only 3 one prosecution witness is left to be examined, namely, the I.O. The trial court has reported that on account of SIR duty, the trial could not be concluded within time. It is submitted that the next date is fixed for the evidence of the I.O. on August 13, 2026. 7. The learned advocate further takes us through the post-mortem report which shows that the death was due to asphyxiation on account of manual throttling. The body of the victim was recovered after two days from the date when she was last seen with the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s injury report would clearly indicate that the girl had tried to struggle and free herself. The petitioner sustained multiple abrasions around his neck and there was a pattern in such abrasion. According to the learned advocate for the State, such injury on the petitioner was due to the resistance provided by the victim when the petitioner was trying to throttle her. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 10. Considering the fact that the last witness is to be examined, we direct the learned Trial Judge to complete the examination of the investigating officer 4 on the next date and conclude the trial within three months from date. 11. Accordingly, we are not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. CRA (DB-B) No.4 of 2026 is dismissed. 12. Needless to mention that, the learned Trial Judge shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 13. Parties are directed to act on the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)