1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] … CRM (M)/7/2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in connection with SC case No. 19 of 2021 arising out of Swaraj Dweep Police Station case No. 7/2021 dated 06.02.2021 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands at Port Blair. And In the matter of Chiranjit Sarkar @ Golu Vs. The State (U.T of Andaman & Nicobar Islands Mr.Deep Chaim Kabir, Sr. Advocate … for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State September 2nd , 2026 (Bithika) Item No.2 1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the petitioner who is accused in SC case No. 19 of 2021 arising out of Swaraj Dweep Police Station case No. 7/2021 dated 06.02.2021 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands at Port Blair. 2. The petitioner has come up with the application for bail on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the instant 2 case and there is inordinate delay in concluding the trial. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the opposite party State. 4. Perused the petition filed and materials on record. 5. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that his client is implicated falsely in the instant case and allegation made against his client is not maintainable. Learned Advocate further submits that this is a case of suo moto FIR which is lodged by the Police Authority and without any basis the petitioner is implicated. 6. Learned Advocate also submits that the body was found beside the rocks and there is every possibility of death being taken place due to fall on the rocks which appeared from the cross examination of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination. 7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate that there was existence of alcohol which was found in the Viscera report. Thus, the case against the petitioner is very much doubtful. 8. Learned Advocate submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and on the basis of the theory of last seen together and from the evidence which is already adduced by the prosecution witnesses the case of the prosecution with regard to last seen together cannot be established. 3 9. Learned Advocate draws attention to the seizure lists and submits that in one of the seizure list it is reflected that the seizure was made on 05.02.2021 although the case was started on 06.02.2021. 10. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the following Judicial decisions: Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation Agency Jammu Reported in Manu/SC/0490/2026, Manoj Vs. The State of Chhatisgarh reported in Manu/SC/1702/2025. 11. Learned Advocate submits that the petitioner is in custody of five and half years and the trial has proceeded very slowly and the right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed. 12. Mr. Karmakar, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party State submits that the Police Authority got information on 06.02.2021 and there are sufficient evidence of the petitioner and the victim last seen together. It is further submitted that the police found injury on the head of the victim thus, there are sufficient materials in the instant case. 13. Upon perusing the materials on record the evidence already adduced and upon hearing of learned Advocates, this Court is of the view that as the trial has commenced and most of the witnesses are already examined it will not be proper to make any observation with regard to the merits of this case. However, it is necessary to 4 decide as the whether the petitioner should be granted bail. In order to decide bail application, it is necessary to consider the nature of the offence the materials against an accused and period of detention and possibility of trial being completed expeditiously. 14. In the case of State Vs Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1962 SC 253, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following facts while dealing with bail application:- “ 1. Nature and seriousness of the offence 2. The character of the evidence 3. Circumstances peculiar to the accused 4. A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial 5. Reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with 6. The larger interest of the public or the State 7. Similar other condition which arise when a Court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non- bailable offence.” 15. In the instant case, the offence in which the petitioner is charged is undoubtedly a very serious one. However, the petitioner is in custody for five and half years and the trial is not yet concluded. 16. In this regard, it is necessary to consider the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2022 SC page 3380. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision observed as follows:- “13. Innocence of a person accused of an offence is presumed through a legal fiction, placing the onus on the prosecution to prove the guilt before the Court. 5 Thus, it is for that agency to satisfy the Court that the arrest made was warranted and enlargement on bail is to be denied. 14. Presumption of innocence has been acknowledged throughout the world. Article 14 (2) of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledge the presumption of innocence, as a cardinal principle of law, until the individual is proven guilty.” 17. In the instant case, the number of witnesses already examined is 18 and the number of witnesses yet to be examined is 5. However, the record of the case goes to show that several dates were fixed and some of the witnesses did not turn up for long period and it cannot be said that the trial will be completed within a short date. Although considering the nature of the offence and the fact that most of the witnesses are examined it may not be reasonable at this stage to grant the petitioner a regular bail, but it has to be decided whether the petitioner should be granted interim bail for a limited period. 18. In the case of Manoranjan Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, CRM (DB) 129 of 2024, Calcutta High Court, Circuit bench at Jalpaiguri, it was observed as follows:- 6 “ In this matter the petitioner is in custody for 2 years 10 months. As in this case examination of all the witness are over this case cannot be equated with other cases. Now the point for consideration is whether it is unreasonable on the part of the petitioner who is about 23 years of age and is in custody for about 2 years 10 months to pray for bail at this stage. The answer is obviously no. An undertrial who is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty may reasonably expect that his right to personal liberty be kept intact during trial and he be permitted to stand trial by imposing some restriction of his right instead of detention. A person in custodial detention specially when of young age suffers mental agony, and trauma which may be avoided during per-trial stage, unless it is a very exceptional case and release of the accused will be threat to public safety and prejudicial to trial. A person being incarcerated for a long period during stage of trial loses his contact with his family members and relation which has every possibility to create stress and depression and is not desirable specially during pre-trial detention. In the event it is not possible to enlarge the accused on confirmed bail the accused may be granted interim bail for short period few times so that he may meet his family members and relations and exercise his right guaranteed under the constitution for a short period during trial when he is presumed to be innocent. When there is a provision of release on parale for a short period of a convict undergoing sentence of 7 imprisonment there may not be any sufficient reason as to why an undertrial cannot be granted interim bail for a short period. Thus even if there is possibility to conclude trial within a short period an undertrial may be granted interim bail if there is difficulty to grant regular bail during trial unless there are very serious exceptional circumstances. All persons have some obligations towards the society and some basic rights. When the said person is implicated in a Criminal case he has to face trial. During trial he may be kept in custody or he may be on bail with condition to appear on all dates fixed. In the event it is thought fit to keep a person in custody till conclusion of trial he should be granted interim bail to meet his family. All persons have basic rights to be with their family and in case of trial in custody for some short interim period. A person has some obligations to see the welfare of his family as family is also a part of the society, so scope should be given to discharge the said obligation. When such scope is available to convicts undergoing imprisonment to meet family there is no reason why the same should not be granted to undertrial prisoners who are presumed to be innocent till proved guilty unless it is a very exceptional case.” 19. In the case of Uttam Singha Vs State of West Bengal CRM(M) 306 of 2024, it was observed as follows:- “Although there is no specific provision in the statute regarding the grant of interim bail, and interim bail is granted for specific purpose for limited period but courts 8 can use the discretion for grant of interim bail where the court is of the view that regular bail cannot be granted. As Article 21 of the Constitution of India has conferred right to life and personal liberty of a person which is curtailed by detention during trial in any criminal case such curtailment of right by detention should be relaxed and modified where it is feasible by granting interim bail, and where regular bail cannot be granted.” 20. In the instant case, considering the period of detention of the petitioner and the fact that still five more witnesses are yet to be examined, and one of the witness has not turned up for a long period, in the interest of justice the petitioner should be granted interim bail. 21. Hence, this application for bail stands disposed of. 22. The petitioner be released on interim bail for eight weeks with two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each, one of which must be local subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. 23. The petitioner upon being released shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the leave of the said Court. 24. The petitioner shall meet the Officer In-Charge of the local Police Station within which he will be residing once a week and also shall intimate his mobile number to police authority. The said mobile number shall not be changed without the leave of the Court. The petitioner shall not meet any of the person who are acquainted with the facts of the case. 9 25. On completion of eight weeks the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Trial Court. Upon surrender of the petitioner the learned trial Court may if it thinks fit extend the interim bail on the application of the petitioner or pass such further orders as it may be deem fit and proper. Such discretion may be used during trial. 26. It is made clear that in the event, the trial cannot be concluded within the period of six months from the next date fixed, the petitioner will be at liberty to pray for interim bail once again before learned Trial Court. 27. All parties are directed to act on a sever copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)