Shashikant Mali on 25 March, 2026

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

2024) vs In Re : Shashikant Mali on 25 March, 2026

Author: Tirthankar Ghosh

Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh

25.03.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Item No.44 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION
Ct.No.35
dc.

Rejected
C.R.M. (M) 251 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 Raniganj Police Station Case No. 188 of 2024
dated 10.06.2024 under Sections 395/397/307/186/333/
353/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 adding Sections
120B/412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections
25/27/35 of the Arms Act, 1959 (G.R. Case No. 1598 of
2024).

                                     And

             In Re :        Shashikant Mali
                                                               ... Petitioner.

             Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv.,
             Mr. Kunal Ganguly
                                                      ... For the Petitioner.

             Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP,
             Mr. Partha Pratim Das,
             Mr. Abhishek Verma
                                                            ... For the State.

Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing

for the State be kept with the record.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year 9 months

and he has been accused only of harboring the offenders.

Petitioner denies the seizure from the particular address

where it has been made and submits that a stock witness

has been used for implicating the petitioner from a premises

with which the petitioner has no association. It has also been

submitted that prosecution has relied upon 94 witnesses,

out of which till date only one witness has been examined.
2

Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other

hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the chain

of circumstances do implicate the present petitioner in

connection with the instant case and the case is not only of

harboring the offenders, but of a conspiracy for committing

the dacoity and robbery. To that effect, learned advocate

intends to rely upon the previous contact between the

present petitioner and the other accused persons who were

involved in the offence as also the recovery which has been

made being a part of the booty of dacoity of the jewellery

shop wherein the offence was committed. Learned advocate

for the State admits that there are 94 witnesses and the

progress of the case is slow for other reasons which are

beyond the control of the prosecution.

Having considered the gravity of the offence, I direct

that at least fifty percent of the vulnerable witnesses

proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution should be

examined within a period of three months from the next date

fixed by the learned Trial Court.

Petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court

after the aforesaid time period is over.

At this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is

rejected.

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 251 of 2026,

is, thus, disposed of.

3

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.)