25.09.2026 Serial no. 882 [G.S.Das] Assistant Registrar (Court) CRM (M) 1245 of 2026 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Sinthi PS/DD Case No. 92 of 2025 dated 30.10.2025 u/s 61(2)/309(4)/311 of the BNS and section 25/27 of the Arms Act. -And- In the matter of : Kazi Israil @ Sahab … Petitioner(s) Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, Sr Adv. Mr. Satadru Lahiri Ms. Suchismita Dutta Ms. P. Singh … for the Petitioner(s) Mr. Bikash Kr. Singh … for the State-respondent(s) The petitioner was arrested on 5th December, 2025 and is in custody for about 10 months; charge-sheet has been submitted and charges have been framed. The evidence of P.W.1 is in progress. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was known to the informant yet the complaint was registered in a designed manner against the unknown miscreants. There has been no identification of the gold bars which were seized and the petitioner is an employee of a jewellery company where he was engaged as a Manager who has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. 2 State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are materials to suggest the complicity of the present petitioner within the close proximity of time of the arrest and there have been recoveries at his instance. There are other witnesses who have supported the prosecution’s case to the extent of sharing gold booty immediately after the offence was committed. I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary so far as the present petitioner is concerned and the mode and manner in which the offence has been committed. Having regard to the fact that the present petitioner was identified in the T.I. parade not only by the owner of the company but also by the complainant and another witness as also the fact that the petitioner was not physically present at the spot but was monitoring the operation at the time of commission of the offence from whom recovery has been made, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the process of trial. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1245 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. 3 Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)