18.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.09. (Suman) Rejected CRM (M) 1276 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Porcedure, 1973 in connection with Chanchal Police Station Case No. 752 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023 under Sections 395/397/326/307/120B/109/412 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 25(1-B) (a)/27/35 of the Arms Act. And In the matter of : Bhola @ Jahiruddin ……Petitioner. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dattatreya Dutta ......for the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Sagnika Banerjee ……for the State. The present case was initiated on the basis of statement of one Sushmita Sen against 7/8 unknown miscreants, narrating that on 27.06.2023, at about 19:15 hrs., the miscreants being masked entered into the jewellery shop of her husband namely Sen jewellery situated within the jurisdiction of Malatipur Durga Mandir, Chanchal Police Station, Malda. The accused persons charged bombs before the jewellery shop and with fire arms and sharp cutting weapons in their hand, entered the shop and asked for the key of locker from her husband and another staff namely Tanmoy Mondal. On the same being denied, the accused persons assaulted the complainant’s husband and the co-worker with the butt of the fire arms while one of the miscreants shot at the complainant’s husband with the fire 2 arm targeting his right leg. Another miscreant assaulted the employee namely, Tanmoy Mondal with a knife on his left hand, who after receiving bleeding injuries, fell down. The accused persons committed dacoity of cash Rs.72,000/-, silver ornaments weighing 600 grams and snatched two mobile phones. After commission of the offence, the accused persons fled away in their motorcycles while charging bombs. Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025, which is after one year nine months of the incident and surprisingly, there were recoveries shown from the possession of the present petitioner to falsely implicate him in connection with the instant case. Petitioner is innocent having an unblemished social life, and on the basis of hearsay material, he has been detained in custody. Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner was shown arrested on March, 2025 and he is unnecessary languishing in custody for one year six months. Learned Advocate for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner was involved in a case at Bihar, Katihar Nagar Sahayak Police Station Case No. 647 of 2021 dated 17.11.2021, which is under Section 302/120B Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 Arms Act. Petitioner was interrogated at the Katihar jail by the Investigating Officer of the case. The present fact reflects that 3 because of the overt acts of the present petitioner and his associates one of the injured persons succumbed to death. So far as the silver jewellery which has been recovered the same were recovered pursuant to the leading statement of the petitioner and another Lalu Shanai at the back side of house of one Motiur Rahman. The test identification parade in respect of the seized silver items was identified by the owner of the shop. On behalf of the State, it has been contended that considering the gravity of the offence the bail prayer of the petitioner shall be rejected. I have taken into account all the materials appearing in the case diary and the charge-sheet, along with two supplementary charge-sheets, which were submitted before the Jurisdictional Court. The modus operandi of the present case do reflect heinous offence. The petitioner has criminal antecedent and the recoveries which were made pursuant to the leading statement of the petitioner and were subsequently identified by the owner of the shop, who is the husband of the complainant, do not make out a case for release of the petitioner at this stage. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 1276 of 2026 is hereby rejected. Case Diary be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the State. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 4 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)