Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31586 (CAL)

KAMAL CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1599/2026 · 2026-07-30

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

30.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 282. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1599 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Bhadreswar Police Station Case No. 462 of 2024 dated 23.11.2024 under Sections 316(2)/338/316(5)/318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) in addition with Sections 338/316(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Section 34/35/52 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Section 23 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. And In the matter of : Kamal Chakraborty ……Petitioner. Mr. Subhendu Bandopadhyay Mr. Soumik Dey Mr. Saikat Pal ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Seth ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year 3 months. Other accused persons have been released on bail. As such, the petitioner be released on bail since the case is based on documents. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is a public servant, a Sub- Inspector of Police associated with the Special Branch and responsible for authenticating the documents for which passport was issued. 2 Having regard to the role of the present petitioner who was responsible in respect of verification of passports and the same in this case seems to be of many foreign nationals, I am of the opinion that the complicity of the present petitioner is completely different from other accused persons. Petitioner is a public servant. He is influential and as such there is possibility of manipulating further progress of the trial. The trial of the case is progressing very smoothly as 11 witnesses have already been examined within a close proximity of time. Having regard to the overall circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 1599 of 2026 is dismissed. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)