28.09.2026 Sl. Nos. 8-10 Court No.35 Rohan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Mangalkote Police Station Case No. 54 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 189(2)/126(2)/118(1)/117(2)/118(2)/109(1)/103(1)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. -And- C.R.M.(M) 1684 of 2026 In the matter of: Swapan Sk. @ Sakilur Rahaman & Anr. …Petitioners With C.R.M.(M) 624 of 2025 In the matter of: The State of West Bengal …Petitioner With C.R.M.(M) 626 of 2025 In the matter of: The State of West Bengal …Petitioner Mr. Pawan Kr. Gupta Mr. Kausik Choudhury Ms. Sofia Nesar Mr. Santanu Sett Ms. Soumoyadipa Kahu …for the Petitioner in CRM (M) 1684 of 2026 Mr. Kallol Mondal, PP Mr. Saurendra Betal Mr. M. Srijit …for the State Mr. Suman Chakraborty … for the De facto Complainant Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. Saibal Krishna Dasgupta Mr. Aritra Roy … for the Opposite Parties in CRM (M) 624 of 2025 & CRM (M) 626 of 2025 2 1. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in CRM (M) 1684 of 2026 prays for bail on behalf of the accused Swapan Sk. @ Sakilur Rahaman and Kachan Sk. 2. So far as the other two applications are concerned, the same are for cancellation of bail filed at the behest of the State being CRM (M) 624 of 2025 and CRM (M) 626 of 2025. 3. CRM (M) 624 of 2025 was preferred challenging the order dated 20th May, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman, wherein, bail was granted to Tuyel Mallick, Meher Ali Sekh @ Meher Sekh, Basar Sk, Abbasuddin Sekh @ Sabulal and Harai Sk. 4. In another application being CRM (M) 626 of 2025, the State prayed for cancellation of bail wherein, the order dated 20th May, 2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman was challenged because of the bail granted to Sanjay Hansda, Toton Sekh @ Laden, Ganesh Das and Debabrata Majhi @ Uday. 5. I have taken into account the materials appearing in the case diary as was produced by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also taken into account the orders which were passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman vide order dated 20th May, 2025. 6. I express my dissatisfaction with regard to the reason assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Katwa, Purba 3 Bardhaman while granting bail to the accused persons, particularly the reasons assigned therein and the stage of the case. 7. The background of the case as is reflected from the prosecution is that on 12th February, 2025, a meeting was held and thereafter on the same day at about 17:00 hours, one Lalu Sk and one Mofijul Sk, when they were returning from Katwa Court by their motor cycle, a white coloured car stopped them in front of Mahaprabhu Brick Field. The motor cycle dashed against the car consequent to which, Lalu Sk and Mofijul Sk fell down on the road. They were, thereafter, assaulted by number of accused persons. 8. It also reflects that Lalu Sk, as a result of the assault, when he was taken to the hospital succumbed to the injuries while Mofijul Sk had to undergo a long gone treatment. 9. I have taken into account the statement of the survivor and the injured, Mofijul Sk, and the names divulged by him in respect of the persons who assaulted. 10. Although the descriptions of the injured are elaborate but the seizure list which are available in the case diary relates to some eucalyptus tree branches only being recovered. 11. Mr. Ghatak, learned advocate appearing for the accused persons/opposite parties in both the cancellation for bail application filed by the State, resisted the stand of the Sate and emphasized that on the basis of hearsay evidence, the accused/opposite parties have been implicated in the case as they 4 were available in the locality and their names were known to everyone. Additionally, it has been submitted that the issue relating to previous enmity cannot be ruled out and the accused/opposite parties, after being released on bail, did not misuse the liberty granted to them, as such, they may be allowed to continue on the same bail bonds. 12. On the other hand, on behalf of the State, it has been submitted that till date, charges could not be framed. Eleven (11) accused persons are still absconding. Warrant of arrest has been issued. Steps are being taken to issue proclamation. 13. Having considered that the order of bail was passed on 20th May, 2025, although, there are issues of dissatisfaction regarding the said order having been passed, I am of the opinion that Sanjay Hansda has been repeatedly named by the witnesses and his overt acts have also been spelt out in the materials appearing in the case diary which is distinguishable from the other accused persons. Having considered that the bail at the relevant stage should not have been granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman on 20th May, 2025 because of his complicity and his culpability as well as his nature of participation, his order of bail passed in the order dated 20th May, 2025 is hereby set aside. 14. Accordingly, the bail order is cancelled and the accused/opposite party No. 1, namely, Sanjay Hansda, in CRM (M) 626 of 2025 is directed to surrender within a week from date. 5 15. So far as the other accused/opposite parties are concerned, although it would not have been fit and proper at the relevant stage to release the accused persons on bail and the reasons assigned were not commensurate particularly with regard to gravity and seriousness of the offence but having considered that the said accused/opposite parties have not misused the liberty granted and their complicity is on a lesser participation, particularly with regard to pre-planning and execution of the same, I am of the view that no interference is called for in respect of the bail granted to Toton Sekh @ Laden, Ganesh Das and Debabrata Majhi @ Uday, Tuyel Mallick, Meher Ali Sekh @ Meher Sekh, Basar Sk, Abbasuddin Sekh @ Sabulal and Harai Sk. (In CRM (M) 624 of 2025 and CRM (M) 626 of 2026). 16. The accused Swapan Sk. @ Sakilur Rahaman and Kachan Sk, who are the petitioners in CRM (M) 16684 of 2026 are similarly placed as the other accused persons whose order of bail has not been interfered with and they are in custody for 1 year 3 months. As such, they may be released on bail. 17. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, namely, Swapan Sk. @ Sakilur Rahaman and Kachan Sk is allowed. 18. Accordingly, the petitioners shall furnish bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman. 6 19. If on bail, the petitioners shall be physically present before the learned Trial Court on each and every date. Petitioners shall not leave the district of Purba Bardhaman without prior permission of the learned Trial Court. 20. In the event, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as stated above, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court. 21. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1684 of 2026 is disposed of. 22. CRM (M) 624 of 2025 also stands disposed of. 23. CRM (M) 626 of 2025 is partly allowed and disposed of. 24. Memo of evidence submitted be kept with the record. 25. Case diary be returned to the learned advocate appearing for the State. 26. All parties shall act in terms of the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 27. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)