IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM/1/2026 In Re:- An application for bail under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed on 13.01.2026 in connection with Crime Case (FIR No.189 of 2024) dated 20.03.2025, PS Pahargoan under Sections 103/3 (5)/61 (2)/238/249 of BNS. And In the matter of Rahul Prasath. R Vs The State Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State February 05, 2026 [AKB] Item No.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year and there is no chance of early conclusion of Trial, since prosecution wants to adduce 68 witnesses out of 70 witnesses. There is no direct evidence against present petitioner. Some of the accused persons were granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any stringent condition. The learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the prayer for bail. He has submitted a status report of the trial pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Port Blair. Let it be taken on record. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the charge was framed against the present petitioner and others on 14.08.2025 and thereafter on two dates only two witnesses were examined by the prosecution. However after 2 consulting the charge sheet and other records, the prosecution is now willing to examine 58 witnesses out of 70 charge sheeted witnesses and it may require one year time to conclude the trial. The learned counsel for the State has also pointed out several materials on record which prima facie show the involvement of the present petitioner along with others to kill the victim in this Island. The learned counsel for the State has also argued that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may abscond and further he may influence, intimidate the other vulnerable witnesses and as such he opposes the prayer for bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely (2021) 3 SCC 713 (Union of India vs K.A.Najeeb) and also (2021) 3 SCC 723 (Angela Harish Sontakke vs State of Maharashtra) in support of his contention that the accused cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period and if that is done, his fundamental right for speedy justice will be violated. I have gone through the materials on record including the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioner. It is also correct that the petitioner is a resident of Tamil Nadu. However, it is found that the charge was framed on 14.08.2025 and thereafter on two dates only two witnesses have been examined. The prosecution now wants to examine 58 witnesses. By the pace the prosecution witnesses are being examined we can say that it is highly unlikely that 58 witnesses can be examined within one year. It is settled 3 principle of law even an accused of serious offence cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. Considering all aspects including the fact there is no chance of an early conclusion of trial, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail of the petitioner on certain condition. The petitioner may find bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each out of which one must be local and he shall remain within the jurisdiction of Mayabunder Police Station and shall not leave such place without permission of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Port Blair excepting for the purpose of attending court proceedings and shall meet the Station House Officer, PS Mayabunder on each and every date excepting Sunday until further order. He shall not intimidate, influence any witnesses in connection with this case and in default, his bail shall stand cancel without any further reference to this Court. He shall inform his current local address where he will be residing now to the learned Trial Court. CRM/1/2026 is thus disposed of. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)