07.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.19. Rakib (Rejected) CRM (M) 1666 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Ausgram Police Station case no. 09 of 2024 dated 07.01.2024 under Sections 395/3967/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And In the matter of : Rajesh Dhali. ……Petitioner. Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri Ms. Ketaki Ghosh .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Kaustav Lal Mukherjee ……for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the witness who was called in at the T.I. Parade do not support the prosecution case. Petitioner is in custody for more than two years six months and till date only three witnesses have been examined out of the 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that two persons were injured, the present petitioner fled away and was arrested from Kerala, subsequently he was identified in the T.I. Parade and the learned trial Court’s observation is that the delay in this case is contributed by the accused persons. In view of the recoveries and the injury which has been inflicted in the present case and the fact that petitioner was identified in the T.I. Parade, which is subject to assessment at the 2 end of the trial, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. However, the learned trial Court should understand that for indefinite period of time a person cannot be kept behind the bars. Accordingly, if a witness appears on Court, the learned trial Court would insist on completion of evidence of such witness. Since, already there a period of more than two years six months have passed the trial of this case would continue in spite of any resolution by the local bar and not only adjournment be granted to either of the parties but also it should be ensured that the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses are completed on a single day until and unless there are exceptional circumstances which would be the exclusive discretion of the trial Court to call the witness for the second time in Court. With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 1666 of 2026 is dismissed. The Superintendent of Police is present virtually before this Court, further appearance of the Superintendent of Police is dispensed with. The Investigating officer as well as Officer-in-Charge of concerned police station are present in Court, their further appearance before this Court is dispensed with. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)