23.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 59. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1829 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 Procedure, 1973 in connection with Jhalda Police Station Case No. 38 of 2022 dated 14.03.2022 under Sections 120B/34/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. And In the matter of : Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh @ Munna ……Petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta Ms. Sofia Nesar Mr. Santanu Sett ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Amajit De, Special PP, CBI ….for the CBI. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years and till date the prosecution is unable to complete all the witnesses which they have cited in the charge sheet. Further learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the foundation on which the prosecution arrested the present petitioner is that he had fired at the deceased as also not substantiated as the alleged arms which was used for firing has been turned down by the expert who have compared with the ammunition recovered from the place of occurrence. Learned advocate for the CBI has opposed the prayer for bail submitted a reply-in-opposition before this Court which 2 categorically states regarding the locus of the present petitioner. Petitioner has been identified by PW 1 Shri Subhash Gorain, PW 3 Shri Pradip Chourasia and PW 4 Shri Jadab Chandra Rajak. The opposition also reflects that there are 9 criminal cases against the present petitioner and it has been also submitted by the learned advocate for the CBI that 79 witnesses have already been examined and the prosecution submits that they would scale down the number of witnesses after the evidence which has already been adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. Having considered the heinousness of the present offence and the antecedents of the petitioner added to the alleged complicity as is surfaced in the prosecution materials, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in spite of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 4 years. However, learned Trial Court would expedite the proceedings to the best of its ability. With the aforesaid observations CRM (M) 1829 of 2026 is dismissed. Reply-in-opposition filed by the CBI be kept with the record. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 3 Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)