Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38075 (CAL)

GOLAPFUL SK AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1734/2026 · 2026-09-02

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

02.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.282. Rakib CRM (M) 1734 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kandi Police Station case no. 129 of 2022 dated 09.03.2022 under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And In the matter of : Golapful Sk & Anr. ……Petitioners. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr. Adv, Mr. Diptangshu Basu Ms. Suparna Chakraborty .....for the Petitioners. Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya Mr. Amartya Mohan Bhattacharyya ……for the State. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioners are in custody for four years five months, their repeated bail applications have been rejected, their bail was also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on or about 22.01.2024 and since then more than two and half years have passed. Emphasis for bail has been made by the learned senior advocate on the issue relating to prolong incarceration of the present petitioners. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that 28 witnesses have been examined and presently only the investigating officer of the case will be examined. The report also reflects the same. It has also been submitted that the next date is fixed in the 3rd week of September, 2026. Having considered that the prosecution intends to only examine the investigating officer of the case, I direct the learned trial Court that in case the examination-in-chief of the investigating 2 officer is not completed within a period of 60 days, learned trial Court would release the present petitioners on bail on any stringent conditions as he deems fit and proper for ensuring further appearance before the learned trial Court. At this stage the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. However, the learned trail Court would abide by the directions passed above. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1734 of 2026 is disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted by the State 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.)