M/L27 08.09.2026 Bpg. Allowed C.R.M. (M) 958 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Bhadreswar Police Station Case No.462 of 2024 dated 23rd November, 2024 under Sections 318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the BNS adding Sections 316(2)/338/316(5) of the BNS read with Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 read with Section 34/35/52 of the Aadhar Act, 2016 and Section 23 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969; Tridip Kumar Mondal @ Bittu @ Tridip Mondal Versus The State of West Bengal Mr. Ankit Agarwala Ms. Alotriya Mukhrjee. ...for the petitioner. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Ms. Rima Banerjee. …for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is similarly situated as the other accused person, namely, Abhijit Halder who has been granted bail. To that effect, attention of the Court is drawn to the charge-sheet. State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that monetary transaction is involved as well as the other accused persons whose bail have been rejected. It has also been contended that out of 26 witnesses proposed to be examined, the evidence of 13 witnesses have been completed. On an overall assessment of the facts of the case, I find that the bail application of the Government servants were rejected. 2 So far as the present petitioner is concerned, petitioner seems to be on parity with the other accused person, namely, Abhijit Halder who has been granted bail. Having regard to the same, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner, namely, Tridip Kumar Mondal @ Bittu @ Tridip Mondal shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hooghly. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date before the learned trial court and shall not leave the district of Hooghly without prior permission of the learned trial court. Thus, CRM(M)958 of 2026 is allowed. Memo of Evidence submitted by the State be kept with the record. All 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 of all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)