07.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.16 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. C.R.M. (M) 589 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Topsia Police Station Case No. 70 of 2025 dated 16.05.2025 under Sections 319(2)/336(2)/336(3)/338/ 339/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 12(1A)(a) of the Passport Act, 1967 read with Sections 14(a)/14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. And In Re : Imran Ahmed ... Petitioner. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Suvendu Hazra, Mr. Kaustav Das, Mr. Subham Ghosh, Ms. Payel Das ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Mr. Utsav Dutta ... For the State. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a vendetta was operating pursuant to which the petitioner has been put behind the bar. Earlier, petitioner was arrested in connection with another case at the behest of a business rival where petitioner was granted bail and subsequently the said business rival again distorted facts, which is the genesis of the present case. The petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2025 and he is in custody for more than 1 year 3 months; charge-sheet was submitted on 18.08.2025 and charges have already been framed. The evidence of CSW-1 as PW-1 is in progress. 2 I have taken into account the period of detention of the present petitioner and objection raised by the learned advocate appearing for the State as well as the documents which are in their custody. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that CSW-2 is the de facto complainant in the other case. Learned Magistrate, after completion of evidence of CSW-1, would continue with the evidence of CSW-2 and the evidence of both the witnesses be completed within a period of three months from the next date fixed. It is directed that the learned Trial Court, after completion of evidence of CSW-2, would release the present petitioner on bail with a condition of local surety. The local surety in the present case would be by way of deposit of original title deed of a property of an individual staying within the jurisdiction of the said Court. It is further directed that trial of the case would continue in spite of any resolution of local Bar and all efforts be put in by the learned advocates for the prosecution and the accused/defence that if a witness appears in this case until and unless it is beyond the time schedule which is required by the Court to take up other matters, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the present matter would continue. With the aforesaid observations, the application for bail, being CRM (M) 589 of 2026, is disposed of. 3 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.)