07.09.2026 Serial no. 8 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (R) 90 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with S.T. Case No. 261 of 2025 and S.C. 50 of 2025 arising out of Tamluk Police Station case No. 959 of 2024 dated 30.10.2024 u/s 318(4)/317(4)/336(3)/338/339/340(2) with section 3(5) and section 61(2) of the BNS. -And- In the matter of : Subrata Basak … Petitioner(s) Mr. Tapodip Gupta Mr. Suman Bhanja Mr. Golam Ahammed … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Kallol Mondal, ld. PP Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Aditya Tiwari … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one year ten months and only nine witnesses till date have been examined. The prosecution intends to examine 58 witnesses as a whole, as such, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned advocate, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail on any stringent condition. Mr. Mondal, learned Public Prosecutor, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecution has reconsidered the witness list and presently is of the opinion 2 that the examination of 26 witnesses for the time being may suffice the prosecution’s case. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that already nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and 17 more witnesses are left to be examined. As such, he prays for some accommodation so that the trial can be taken to its logical conclusion. I have taken into account the background of the case. The case originated pursuant to a Government scheme for the development of students by providing TAB under the name and style of ‘Taruner Swapna’. The amounts which were advanced for the TAB were diverted by the present petitioner along with the others. So far as the diversion of the amounts is concerned, the petitioner not only restricted himself to the district of Purba Medinipur but carried out such act and actions within the jurisdiction of Maniktala police station, Kasba police station and Bhabanipur police station. There is another cyber crime case registered against the present petitioner within the jurisdiction of Howrah Police Commissionerate. Having considered the antecedents of the present petitioner and the stage of the present case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. Accordingly, CRM (R) 90 of 2026 is dismissed. 3 Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)