GANGARAMPUR PS CASE No. 262 of 2024 · Calcutta High Court

Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya Mr. Abhik Sen Mr. Poonnug Roy Ms. Arushi Rathore Mr. Ranjit Singha … Petitioner(s) … for the Petitioner(s) … for the State-respondent(s) Affidavit of service filed be kept with the record. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years two months and only nine witnesses have been examined. Learned advocate emphasized that the prosecution as a whole intends to examine 27 witnesses, as such, there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future. Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and draws the attention of the court to the statement under section 183 of the BNSS; the medico-legal examination report as well as the evidence of the victim. I have taken into account the overall circumstances particularly the medico-legal examination report. 2 Having considered the same, at this stage, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail having regard to the gravity of the offence. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is Rejected. However, there are materials which need to be rebutted, as such, the learned trial court would give appropriate opportunity to the defence by examining the witnesses in quick succession. All efforts be taken to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the next date fixed. The petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after the aforesaid time period is over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1703 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.) 3