Judgment · High Court

Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Ms. Sinthia Bala Ms. Sarmistha Basak Ms. Diksha Ghosh … for the Petitioner(s) … for the State-respondent(s) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years four months and hardly there is any possibility of the trial concluding very soon as the prosecution has relied upon 34 witnesses. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the complicity of the present petitioner is evident. Learned advocate also submits that State has decided to reduce the number of the witnesses to 19; 14 witnesses have already been examined and five more witnesses are left to be examined. A report, to that extent, has been filed by the learned advocate for the State. Let the same be kept with the record. 2 In view of the stage of the trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. However, the trial court would conclude the evidence of remaining five witnesses within five months provided there is cooperation from the accused person. Accordingly, CRM(M) 125 of 2026 is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)