1 M/L 45 10.09.2026 Rohit, A.R.(Ct.) ct.no.35 Partly Allowed IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.M (M) 1203 of 2026 Ramjan @ Bhutua @ Bhutua Ansari & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No. 805 of 2021 dated 17.09.2021 under Sections 447/324/326/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 32 of 2022 arising out of G.R. Case No. 2215 of 2021 And In the matter of : 1. Ramjan @ Bhutua @ Bhutua Ansari 2. Saiful Ansari ……Petitioners. Mr. Kunal Ganguly …for the Petitioner Mr. Sayan Mukherjee …for the State Mr. Nirupam Dhali …for the De-facto Complainant 1. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in custody for almost five years and only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 2. Learned Advocate for the De-facto complainant is present and opposes the prayer for bail. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact relating to the nature of participation of the accused, as has surfaced from the evidence of the 7 witnesses. 2 3. Learned Advocate for the State submits that the offending weapon was recovered pursuant to leading statement of petitioner no. 2. 4. So far as the evidence is concerned I find that the petitioner no. 1 inserted the sword upon the deceased which has been revealed by one of the injured witnesses. So far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, his role was of assaulting with the aid of a stick upon the injured persons as well as the deceased. 5. Be that as it may having considered that five years have passed and the nature of injury inflicted by each of the accused persons are completely different. Although evidences reflect of previously conspiring only on the ground of delay I am inclined to release petitioner no. 2 (Saiful Ansari) on bail. So far as the bail prayer of the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, considering the vital injuries inflicted by him I am not inclined to release the petitioner no. 1 (Ramjan @ Bhutua @ Bhutua Ansari) on bail. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 2 (Saiful Ansari) is allowed. The petitioner no. 2 ,namely, Saiful Ansari shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. 3 7. 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 Uttar Dinajpur without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. Additionally, petitioner shall not enter the jurisdiction of Raiganj Police Station except for the purposes of attending the Court. 8. If there are any violation of the conditions and there are accusations that the petitioner is exerting his influence, in that case the learned jurisdictional Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail without further reference. 9. With the aforesaid observation, C.R.M (M) 1203 of 2026 is partly allowed. 10. Report and the memo of evidence be kept with the record. 11. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the Official website of this Court. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)