Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

HomePabitra Halder on 7 April, 2026

Pabitra Halder on 7 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

20B/411 Of The Indian Penal Code vs In Re : Pabitra Halder on 7 April, 2026

Author: Tirthankar Ghosh

Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh

07.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Item No.15 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
Ct.No.35
dc.

Rejected
C.R.M. (M) 48 of 2026

SPONSORED

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in
connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No. 527 of
2024 dated 14.07.2024 under Sections 342/323/325/
376(2)(n)/376D/376/511/384/354A/354B/354D/506/509/
120B/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

And

In Re : Pabitra Halder
… Petitioner.

Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das
… For the Petitioner.

Ms. Amita Gaur,
Ms. Afreen Begum
… For the State.

Mr. Saswata Bhattacharyya
… For the de facto complainant.

Memo of Evidence submitted by the learned advocate

appearing for the State be kept with the record.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year 9 months and till

date, only three witnesses out of 13 witnesses have been

examined. Further, petitioner is similarly situated as another

accused person viz. Ramprasad Mondal who has been

granted bail. As such, petitioner may be released on bail

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the

prayer for bail and produces the case diary.

Learned advocate appearing for the de facto

complainant also opposes the prayer for bail.
2

I have taken into account the statement of the victim

lady recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The said statement completely distinguishes the

locus of the said Ramprasad Mondal who has been granted

bail and the present petitioner who is allegedly thickly

connected with the core offence. Having regard to the gravity

and heinousness of the offence, I am not inclined to release

the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the

petitioner is rejected.

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 48 of 2026, is,

thus, dismissed.

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 this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all

requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)



Source link