Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 39551 (CAL)

MD. RIYAL @ REJAUL @ REAJUL@ REJAL HOQUE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1810/2026 · 2026-09-10

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

10.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.13 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1810 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 71 of 2025 dated 14.01.2025 under Sections 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/ 109/103/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re : Md. Riyal @ Rejaul @ Reajul @ Rejal Hoque ... Petitioner. Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, APP, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta ... For the State. Md. Wasim Akram, Ms. Sabrina Parveen ... For the de facto complainant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since January, 2025 and in spite of the earlier directions, there has been no progress in the case, although the order was communicated to the learned Trial Court at the earliest. Learned advocate appearing for the de facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that when the evidence started immediately after the examination-in-chief, an application was submitted under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for deferment of cross-examination of all the prosecution witnesses. It has also been informed that another accused has been arrested, consequently learned Trial Court has 2 fixed date for consideration of charges in respect of the said accused person. Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail. Having considered that the case did not progress to the satisfaction of this Court and the case is one of murder, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1810 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.)