Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46500 (CAL)

BILTU MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/1772/2026 · 2026-10-06

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

06.10.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.M/L.76 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION Ct.No.35 dc. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 1772 of 2026 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with STF (HQ) Police Station Case No. 06 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 under Sections 111(1)/111(3)/111(4)/ 111(7)/318(4)/319(2)/336(3)/338/340(1)/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D of Information Technology Act and Section 38 of Aadhar Act, 2016 and Sections 14C/14(c) and added Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. And In Re : Biltu Mondal ... Petitioner. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S. S. Saha ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP, Mr. Pawan Gupta, Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha, Mr. Anamitra Banerjee ... For the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year 2 months. According to the learned advocate, the complicity of the petitioner is much less than the other accused persons. Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail. In respect of other accused persons in CRM(M) 1870 of 2026 and CRM(M) 2010 of 2026, there were directions upon the Trial Court to expedite the process and overcome the stage of consideration of charges and for that a period of three months was granted. 2 Having considered the overall circumstances, I direct the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after a period of three months from 28.09.2026. If the learned Trial Court is unable to overcome the stage of consideration of charges, learned Trial Court is directed to adhere to the directions passed in the aforesaid bail applications, particularly with regard to the issue relating to consideration of charges is concerned. At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid time period is over. Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 1772 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.)