Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8105 (CAL)

KARTIK MAHATA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRM(M)/432/2026 · 2026-02-25

Tirthankar Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

D/L217 25.02.2026 Bpg. Rejected C.R.M. (M) 432 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Sankrail Police Station Case No.110 of 2025 dated 16.09.2025 under Sections 318(3)(4)/336(3)/338/340(2)/61(2) and adding Section 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ; Kartik Mahata Versus The State of West Bengal Mr. Saryati Datta Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan. …for the petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. Mr. Joydeep Roy Ms. Snigdha Saha. …for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a broker who has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The petitioner had no role in the alleged offence and the other accused persons are the principal offenders who are beneficiary of the transfers which have been effected so far as the land is concerned. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the subject matter of the case relates to 200 acres of land being transferred and the involvement of 162 deeds. None of the rules are followed or have been adhered to while transferring the property. There is dearth in the police investigation as admitted on behalf of the State. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case would be taken over by the CID, Bhabani Bhawan, West Bengal. 2 In view of the charge-sheet having been submitted without any documents being properly collected in a case of such nature, I am of the opinion that after the CID takes up the investigation, efforts be exerted to unearth the truth. It is a fact that the Sub-Registrar is the complainant and the whereabouts of the sellers and buyers are questionable in the present case as the transfer do not adhere to the rules, guidelines and/or laws. Petitioner has been part of the conspiracy, as such, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM(M)432 of 2026 is rejected at this stage. 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.)