Dismissed¶6

Yyyyy v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC16 Oct 2025CRM(M)/1549/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; C.R.M.(M) 1549 of 2025; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Section 439 CrPC 1973; sections 351(2)/64(1) Bharatiya Naya Sanhita 2023; Park Street Police Station Case No. 111 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025; custody 87 days; investigation pending 1 year 6 months; criminal antecedents; adverse effect on investigation; charge sheet within statutory period; case diary transfer Birbhum Police Station turned down; de facto complainant Pradhan of local panchayat; Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.; decision dated 16.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

The offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. ¶4

Yyyyy Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

16.10.2025 Item No.02 Ct. No. 16 PG

¶2

C.R.M.(M) 1549 of 2025

¶3

In Re:- An application for bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023/Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 111 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025 under sections 351(2)/64(1) of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : YYYY ………….Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee .…for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP Mr. Dipankar Pramanick……..for the State

¶8

Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Sourav Pal ……….for the de facto complainant

¶9

The submission advanced on behalf of thde learned advocate representing the petitioner is that the case is pending for investigation for more than 1 year and 6 months and the present petitioner is behind the bar for a period of 87 days and he has been falsely implicated by the present de facto complainant, who is the Pradhan of the local panchayat. Accordingly, he prays for enlarging on him bail.

¶10

Learned advocate representing the de facto complainant raises strong objection and informed the Court regarding the number of criminal antecedents attached, whereby the present petitioner is involved and number of cases pending against him.

¶11

¶12

The learned Prosecution on the other hand submits that the prayer was made on the point of jurisdiction for transferring the case diary to Birbhum Police Station. However, both the petitions have been turned down by the learned Court and it is further submitted that the charge sheet will be submitted within the statutory period.

¶13

It is not undisputed and undenied that the offence, as alleged, is serious in nature. The criminal intend are evident from the number of cases filed against the petitioner wherefrom the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. More so, the investigation is still going on.

¶14

At this stage, this Court is of the view that enlarging the petitioner on bail would have adverse effect in the process of investigation where serious allegation is involved.

¶15

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

¶16

All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶17

(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)

Yyyyy v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yyyyy v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamali Roy Vs State

Tinkari Roy Vs State

County Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Cdpl) & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Ichhanabi Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Amit Swarnakar @ Amit Kumar Swarnakar Vs State of West Bengal

Amit Swarnakar @ Amit Kumar Swarnakar Vs State of West Bengal