02.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.292 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1746 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Egra Police Station Case No. 337 of 2024 dated 29.05.2024 under Sections 448/34/395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code. And In Re : Aktaruddin @ Sk. Ataruddin ... Petitioner. Mr. Anirban Mitra, Mr. Amit Halder, Ms. Madhumita Sadhukhan ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Mr. Soumya Raha ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for 2 years 2 months and till date only five witnesses have been examined and 12 more witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned advocate further submits that earlier direction of this Court has also not been complied with. There is nothing on record to submit that the earlier order was communicated to the learned Trial Court. However, two more witnesses have been examined since the last rejection. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgement of this Hon’ble Court passed on 05.05.2026 to emphasise that petitioner be released on bail on the grounds of delay. To that effect, reference has been 2 made to Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur Sk @ Machuur Ali Vs. The State of West Bengal {CRA(DB)/360/2025}. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the Court to the relevant documents which reflect that in T.I. Parade, petitioner was identified. I have taken into account the gravity of the offence where the informant and his wife were staying at their daughter and son-in-law’s residence. They were assaulted and the miscreants took away gold ornaments, laptop, Wifi routers, CCTV camera along with cash of Rs.70,000/-. The informant was injured and the occipital region of the wife of the informant also reflects injuries. After much persuasion, the police authorities were able to trace out the principal accused and the group of persons associated with him. The T.I. Parade reflected the presence of the petitioner at the spot when dacoity was committed. There are overt acts which have already surfaced in evidence. Learned advocate for the petitioner emphasises on the period of incarceration of the petitioner. To that effect, petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgement which has been referred to above. I have taken into account the whole of the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench and I find that the said judgement narrated incidents which were material for the purpose of the said case. No specific ratio or any straight jacket formula has been laid down. So far as the principle of bail is concerned, the duty of the Court is to assess the materials of the case and there is 3 no possibility of one case being similar to another. The principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India definitely have its overriding effect, but the same are not applicable uniformly to all cases. The present is a case wherein dacoity was committed, two old persons were injured by the accused person and others and they were identified in the T.I. Parade. There is seriousness in the offence complained of particularly relating to the participation and overt acts involved. Having regard to the same, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The examination of 12 witnesses is left. Efforts be made so that at least, in a month, examination of one witness is completed by the prosecution. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1746 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed. All concerned parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly 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.)