Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Durgesh Mondal & Anr vs Unknown on 30 July, 2026
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
30.07.2026
Court No.35.
D/L. 279.
Kausik
(Partly Allowed)
CRM (M) 1596 of 2026
In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Raghunathganj PS
Case No. 560 of 2025 dated 27.04.2025 under section
126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/103(1)/109(1)/3(5) of BNS, 2023 and
Section 3/4 of E.S. Act.
And
In the matter of : Durgesh Mondal & Anr.
……Petitioners.
Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Usof Ali Dewan
Mr. Asif Dewan
Mr. Mehedi Masud
……for the Petitioners.
Mr. Mukesh Kr. Gupta
……for the State.
In spite of the earlier observations made by this Court
on April 2026 in CRM (M) 679 of 2026, there is slow progress of
the proceedings.
Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners
submits that petitioner no. 1 is in custody since April, 2025
and petitioner no. 2 is in custody from 1st May, 2025. There is
hardly any possibility of the trial progressing in near future as
the commitment till date has not taken place. As such the
petitioners may be released on bail.
Learned advocate for the State submits that date has
been fixed for supply of copies.
2
Having considered the overall circumstances including
the complicity of the present petitioners as is reflected from the
statement of Dhananjoy Mondal under Section 183 of the BNSS
as also the post-mortem report, I am inclined to allow the
prayer for bail of petitioner no. 1 namely, Durgesh Mondal and
reject the prayer for bail of petitioner no. 2 namely, Suman
Mondal @ Raju Mondal.
Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1, namely, Durgesh Mondal
shall furnish bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand
Only) with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of
Learned ACJM, Jangipur.
If on bail petitioner no. 1 namely Durgesh Mondal shall
be physically present regularly before the jurisdictional Court
and shall not leave the District of Murshidabad without prior
permission of the Court.
Petitioner No. 2 namely Suman Mondal @ Raju Mondal
would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail, if within a
period of 3 months, the stage of charges are not overcome by
the concerned Court.
Accordingly, CRM (M) 1596 of 2026 is partly allowed.
Memo of Evidence submitted be kept with the record.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
3
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite
formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
