06.04.2026 Serial no. 75 [G.S.D] CRM (DB) 3905 of 2023 In the matter of : Krishna Dutta … Petitioner(s) Mr. Sumanta Ganguly Mr. Dibakar Sardar … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Prasun Kr.Datta, ld. APP Mr. Nirupam Dhali … for the State-respondent(s) Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Abhijit ingh Ms. Sagnika Banerjee … for the o.p. no.2 Inadvertently, in the appearance of the order dated 25.02.2026, the name of the learned advocate for the petitioner has been recorded as ‘Mr. Arijit Ganguly. It is incorrect. It should be reads as follows. ‘Mr. Sumanta Ganguly Mr. Dibakar Sardar … for the petitioner(s)’ Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the bail being granted, information was furnished to the police authorities for which a case was registered. Learned advocate also submits that the accused has misused his liberty, as such, his bail is entitled to be cancelled. Again, it is addressed to this court that the petitioner is being regularly threatened by the accused and his relations. Learned advocate for the private opposite party, on the other hand, submits that in his (accused) absence, his wife was 2 assaulted by the petitioner and her associates. To that effect, a case has also been registered. However, I find from the record that both the petitioner as well as the accused are married individuals and are presently at loggerhead for which several criminal cases and/or information are being furnished before the police authorities. The petitioner was granted bail on 1st June, 2023 in connection with the present case which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present litigation. However, the report submitted by the State reflects that after the charge-sheet having been submitted, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions and presently, the case has been transferred to the Fast Track, 3rd Court, Barrackpore. Having regard to the stage of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of bail, but, at the same time, having considered that both the parties are bent upon to physically assault each other and the present petitioner - being the defacto- complainant, whose evidence will be vital for the trial of the case, I am inclined to impose certain conditions which would include that the accused, Mithun Biswas will stay outside the jurisdiction of Mohanpur Police Station till the evidence of the victim is recorded by the learned trial court. However, if there are further grievances, both the parties will canvass such issues before the learned trial court. With the aforesaid observations, CRM (DB) 3905 of 2023 is disposed of. Report submitted by the State be kept with the record. 3 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.)