Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5325 (CAL)

MD @ MOHAMMAD IMRAN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/146/2026 · 2026-02-09

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L 49 09.02.2026 Bpg. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 146 of 2026 In Re: An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Bhadreswar Police Station Case No.462 of 2024 dated 23.11.2024 under Sections 318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and under Section 23 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1963 subsequently added Section 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Md. @ Mohammad Imran Versus The State of West Bengal Mr. Sabir Ahmed Mr. Suman Chakraborty Mr. Quazi Ezaz Ahmed. …for the petitioner. Mr. Antarikhya Basu Mr. Sachit Talukdar. …for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for 395 days and is better situated than the other accused who has already been granted bail. Another accused has also been granted bail according to the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner may be released on bail. It has also been contended that the bail order of Mohan Shaw was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but the same has been withdrawn by the State. Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that already 11 witnesses have been examined in this case, petitioner is a public servant who have similar antecedents. To that effect, learned advocate for the 2 State has drawn the attention in respect of Chinsurah Police Station Case No.324 of 2021 dated 02.08.2021 wherein similar nature of offences were earlier detected. Having considered the factum of complicity of the present petitioner and the evidence of the case is in progress and the petitioner as public servant was thickly involved as also prima facie there are documents which shows involvement, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM(M)146 of 2026 is rejected. All 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 of all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)