59. 21.09.2026. Court No.237. (Pritam) CRR 2674 of 2026. Abdul Ali @ Babu Sk. & Anr. -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv., Mr. Md. Hafiz Ali, Mr. Amrit Sinha. .…for the petitioners. Mr. Biswajit Manna. .......for the op no.2. Mr. Tewari, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were not named as accused in the original charge-sheet and that their names surfaced only at the time of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency. It is further submitted that, even in the supplementary charge-sheet, there is no prosecutable evidence against the petitioners. Learned advocate appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail has already been rejected by this Court. It is further submitted that, by an order dated July 24, 2026, passed in CRR 2393 of 2026, this Court directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 2 three months from the date of communication of the said order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. I am of the view that, since this Court has already directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial within the aforesaid period, the present application for quashing ought not to be entertained at this stage. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek their discharge before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, CRR 2674 of 2026 is disposed. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)