25.09.2026 Court No.35. D/L.35. Rakib (Partly Allowed) CRM (M) 1888 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Kaliyaganj Police Station case no. 498 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024 under Sections 115(2)/118(2)/109(1)/74/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In the matter of : Bishnu Roy & Ors. ……Petitioners. Ms. Sudeshna Maji Mr. Soumya Kanjilal .....for the Petitioners. Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia Ms. Priyanka Chandra ……for the State. Mr. Rishav Kumar Singh Mr. Soumalya Dutta ......for the De-facto complainant. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submit that petitioners have been foisted with criminal case over a long standing land dispute. Petitioners are in custody for about one year ten months, they have no criminal antecedents. As such, there is no possibility of the trial being taken to its logical conclusion as prosecution has relied upon 24 witnesses and till date PW1 has not been completed. Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant opposes the prayer for bail because of the approach of the present petitioners who entered over powered, assaulted and committed the injuries which resulted in victim succumbing to death. Learned advocate further submits that the accused persons are delaying the trial, they are not allowing cross-examination of PW1 to be completed. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail. I have taken into account the evidence of the eye-witnesses including the injured. So far as the eye-witnesses are concerned, I find that involvement of all the petitioners at the time of offence is available, however, there is mixed representation by the eye-witnesses. So far as the majority of the witnesses are concerned, the overt acts which have been attributed to Jagadish @ Jagodish Roy, Deben Barman @ Deben Roy and Jibon Kumar Roy @ Jibon Roy are completely different, they are the persons whom majority of the witnesses have stated to have inflicted the vital injuries. Having considered the genesis of the present case which has a long standing dispute and the petitioners are in custody for one year ten months, charges have been framed, evidence have already commenced and there are no antecedents so far as the present petitioners are concerned, I am not inclined to release the petitioner no.2, Sushil Roy and petitioner no.3, Jibon Kumar Roy @ Jibon Roy on bail. As such, prayer for bail of the petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3 is rejected. So far as the prayer for bail of the petitioner no.1, namely, Bishnu Roy is concerned, his prayer for bail is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner no.1, namely, Bishnu Roy 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 3 the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. If on bail, the petitioner no.1 shall be physically present on each and every date before the learned Trial Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of district of Uttar Dinajpur without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. Additionally, petitioner no.1 shall stay outside the jurisdiction of Kaliyaganj police station except for the purposes of attending the Court proceedings. Thus, CRM (M) No. 1888 of 2026 is partly allowed. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order 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.)