Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
S.L.30. In the High Court at Calcutta Ct. 05 Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri CRM (M) 309 of 2026 08.10.2026 Bd. Ramen Barman & Anr. Rejectd. Vs. State of West Bengal In Re:- An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Dhupguri Police Station case no. 155 of 2026 dated 23.05.2026 under Sections 141/143 (2) of BNS read with section 19/20/21/24 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
Mr. Sourav Kar Ms. Tanushree Baishya …for the petitioners Mrs. Panchali Deb Sikdar (Nag) Mr. Bijay Bikram Das Mr. Rajdeep Das … for the State.
In this application the petitioners submits that they are in custody for about 137 days. He further submits that other accused persons are on court bail. The police received a source information and thereby conducted a search at the house of one co- accused where a foreign national women was found to have taken shelter. On enquiry, she disclosed that she was a Bangladeshi national and had been brought to India by the present petitioners. She also disclosed that she had no valid passport, visa or other travel documents and also alleged that she was subjected to torture by the present petitioners after which one Apu Roy took her custody with whom she started residing at the house of Safikul Islam. During investigation it had emerged that the present
2 petitioners had facilitated her illegal entry into India. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail prayer, contending that the present petitioners are not at the same footing with that of other accused persons who are on court bail. The present petitioners are the main culprit of the offences who had trafficked the victim girl from Bangladesh. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State, and considering the incriminating materials collected during investigation against the present petitioners, their prayer for bail is rejected. Accordingly, CRM (M) 309 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)