Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 50021 (CAL)

BISWAJIT DAS @ PUCHI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/2070/2026 · 2026-10-08

Ananya Bandyopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

08.10.2026 ct 33 C.R.M.(M) No. 2070 of 2026 sl no. 36 cm In Re : In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Halisahar Police Station Case No. 555 of 2025 dated 26.12.2025 Sections 103(1)/238(a)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And Rejected In Re : Biswajit Das @ Puchi ….. petitioner Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Ms. Rajashree Tah …… for the petitioner Mr. Rajashree Venket Kundalia Mr. Uttsav Dutta …… for the State 1. The learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted the petitioner to be in custody for 10 months. It was further submitted upon an application under RTI, the Dum Dum Central Correctional Home had informed the petitioner to be suffering from “periphery neurology” being treated by the medical officers and doctors of R. G .Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. He seeks the petitioner to be enlarged on bail for further medical treatment. 2. The learned advocate representing the State referred to the statements of the inmates of the Rehabilitation Centre under the ownership of the present petitioner whereby the victim used to be regularly and frequently assaulted. The statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as 180 BNSS raised abominable instances to have 2 been encountered by the victim. More so, endorsed by the injuries depicted in the post mortem report. 3. Considering the gravity and the intensity of the alleged offence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 4. The Dum Dum Correctional Home, authorities are to provide necessary medical facilities to the petitioner to the best of their convenience and ability. 5. Trial court is to frame the charges and proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 6. The memo of evidence filed by the State be taken on record. 7. Accordingly, the application being CRM(M) 2070 of 2026 is dismissed. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)