Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6412 (CAL)

SIRAJ ANSARY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/129/2026 · 2026-02-05

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

16. 05-02-2026 CRM (M) 129 of 2026 (ct. no.35) In Re: An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 265777 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Para Police Station Case S. De No.84 of 2024 dated 04.08.2024 under Section 103 of BNS. (Allowed) And In the matter of : Siraj Ansary. …Petitioner. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, Mr. Madhusudan Mandal, …for the petitioner. Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Mrs. Manasi Roy, …for the State. Memo of Evidence submitted by the State, be kept with the records. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for one and half years and out of 35 witnesses cited by the prosecution till date 8 witnesses have been examined. Learned advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner’s name was divulged by the deceased to his wife. There was some animosity between the petitioner and the deceased. The offending weapon was recovered at the behest of the present petitioner and also that more than 10 witnesses have been examined. I have taken into account the overall circumstances, the period of detention and that 10 witnesses have already been examined. The Memorandum of Evidence submitted by the State does not reflect that there are antecedents of the present petitioner. 2 Having considered the period of detention of the present petitioner and there is possibility that on provocation the incident happened, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is unwarranted. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner viz, Siraj Ansary shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, Purulia. If on bail, the petitioner shall be physically present on each and every date so fixed by the learned Court and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the district of Purulia without prior permission of the learned Court. The application for bail, being CRM (M) 129 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 the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)