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
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.)
