24.09.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.17 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1862 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Hingalganj Police Station Case No. 237 of 2024 dated 18.12.2024 under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act. And In Re : Machuma Khatun @ Priti Monil Shah ... Petitioner. Mr. Anirban Mitra, Mr. Md. Sultan Ahmed Siddiqui ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Debangan Bhattacharya, Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2024. She is a lady and suffering from medical ailments. Additionally, it has been contended that petitioner is an Indian citizen, married to an Indian and has been falsely foisted with the present criminal case. According to the petitioner, there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future. As such, petitioner may be released on bail. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner was intercepted at the Border. The documents, prima facie, available with the petitioner do not reflect that she is an Indian citizen; consequently, she has been charged under the Foreigners 2 Act. Charge-sheet has already been submitted in the month of December, 2024. The materials which the petitioner is presenting before this Court do not reflect from the records that petitioner’s claim of being of Indian origin has been canvassed before the learned court in seisin of the case. Petitioner also claims of serious medical ailments. On both counts, petitioner will canvass the issue before the jurisdictional court. The jurisdictional court will decide the same and pass necessary directions of enquiry, if required. So far as the case is concerned, learned Trial Court would proceed with the case and ensure that few witnesses are examined in course of the year. At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1862 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of. 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.)