Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32383 (CAL)

SOUVIK CHAKRABORTY @ BABUN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

CRM(R)/58/2025 · 2026-08-07

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

07.08.2026 Serial no. 92 [G.S.D] CRM (R) 58 of 2025 In the matter of : Souvik Chakraborty @ Babun … Petitioner(s) Mr. Subhabrata Datta Mr. Aranya Saha … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukesh Kr. Gupta … for the State Mr. Rajat Kr. Dhar Mr. Debapriya Mazumder … for the o.p. no.2 Ms. Rita Patra Mr. Pradip Bose … for the o.p. no.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner prays for Cancellation of Bail in respect of the order dated 21.03.2025 which was passed by the learned CJM, Barasat in connection with Baguiati PS Case No. 393 of 2023. Learned advocate by referring to the order submits that the bail was granted as there was no objection on behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in the case. It has also been submitted that there was subsequent threats at the behest of the accused/opposite parties and the same was informed to the concerned authorities. To that effect, learned advocate intends to place documents before this court. Learned advocate for the State is present. Learned advocates for the o.p. nos. 2 and 3 are also present and opposes the contention advanced on behalf of the defacto-complainant/petitioner. 2 I have taken into account the overall circumstances and so far as the first contention of the present petitioner relating to non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate while granting bail is concerned, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate took into account that the offence complained of was Magistrate triable and as charge-sheet was submitted, the learned Magistrate was of the view that further custodial detention was unwarranted, hence, granted bail. So far as the other issue of misuse of liberty is concerned, the same is part and parcel of the present application for Cancellation of Bail and subsequent events. Having considered the above, I grant liberty to the present petitioner to canvass regarding the second and subsequent issues relating to misuse of liberty before the learned jurisdictional court, as such, no interference is called for in respect of the Bail order passed on 21.03.25. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (R) 58 of 2025 is disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3