07.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L.97. Rakib CRM (R) 79 of 2025 In Re: An Application for Cancellation of Bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Ummejamila. ……Petitioner. Mr. R. Islam Mr. S. Bhakat Mr. M. Rahaman .....for the Petitioner. Mr. Somnath Bera ……for the State. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the bail was granted on 14.02.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in Criminal Misc. Case no. 775/2025 without considering relevant factors. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one of the legs of the injured had to be amputated because of the bomb being hurled upon him and the injuries sustained. Learned advocate appearing for the State has produced the Case Diary and also referred to a list of nine cases presently pending against the petitioner. Apart from the instant case the eight other cases which are against the petitioner are stated below: 2 SL No. Case Reference of Fulbabu Sk 1 Saktipur PS Case no 159/16 dt 16/07/16 U/s- 341/406/325/326/34 IPC 2 Saktipur PS Case no 75/22 18/06/22 u/s 147/148/149/186/332/333/353/427/448/447/30 7 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, 3/4/5 ES Act, Sec 9 of WB MPO Act. 3 Saktipur PS Case no 106/22 dt 04/07/22 u/s 406/420/506 IPC. 4 Saktipur PS Case no 207/22 dt 07/11/22 u/s 498A/325/308/34 IPC. 5 Saktipur PS Case no 243/22 dt 26/12/22 u/s 498A/376 IPC 6 Saktipur PS Case no 85/23 dt 27/04/23 u/s 341/325/308/34 IPC 7 Saktipur PS Case no 169/24 dt. 19/06/24 u/s 447/323/325/307/379/354/34 IPC & 9 (b) IE Act. 8 Saktipur PS Case no 192/24 dt. 03.08.24 u/s 126/118/109/3(5) BNS. As the antecedents of the present petitioner namely, Fulbabu Sk was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mushidabad while releasing him on bail or such materials was not produced before the Court, I am of the opinion that the bail granted to the accused opposite party calls for re-consideration. The accused opposite party is not present before this Court, as such direct interference is not being made by this Court. However, learned Sessions Judge would re-consider the bail application which is pending within a period of six weeks preferably by 30th September, 2026. 3 Taking into account the antecedents of the accused opposite party as also the consequences suffered by the injured in the present case, I am of the opinion that no interference is made by this Court. With the aforesaid observations CRM (R) 79 of 2025 is disposed of. Learned Sessions Court would adhere to the directions passed above. Learned advocate appearing for the State will immediately communicate this order to the jurisdictional Sessions Court which granted bail to the accused opposite party. Status report along with reference of cases in respect of Fulbabu Sk be kept with the record. 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.)