Disposed¶16

Sayan Kabir v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC9 Apr 2025CRM(M)/24/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta HC Jalpaiguri circuit; CRM(M)/24/2025; CRAN/1/2025; Sayan Kabir vs State of West Bengal; modification/relaxation of bail conditions; bail order dated April 09, 2025; weekly reporting to Officer-in-Charge relaxed to once a fortnight; Mainaguri Police Station jurisdiction restriction retained; charge-sheet submitted, charges framed, trial not commenced; no complaints of non-compliance; judge MD. Shabbar Rashidi; decision 01.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Partial relaxation of bail conditions: reporting to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station where the petitioner resides reduced from once a week to once a fortnight; all other conditions of the April 09, 2025 bail order retained. ¶16

Sayan Kabir Vs the State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the conditions imposed by the bail order dated April 09, 2025 in CRM(M)/24/2025 (weekly reporting to the Officer-in-Charge and prohibition on entering Mainaguri Police Station jurisdiction) should be waived or relaxed, given submission of the charge-sheet and framing of charges.

¶3

Court's answer

The bail conditions requiring residence outside Mainaguri Police Station jurisdiction and weekly reporting to the Officer-in-Charge are directed against the trial of the case and do not deserve to be relaxed at this stage, as the trial is likely to commence.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the present situation, the likelihood of commencement of the trial and the absence of any complaints regarding non-compliance of the bail condition, the weekly reporting condition was modified to reporting once a fortnight.

¶14

Key takeaways

All other conditions of the bail order dated April 09, 2025 shall remain the same.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail condition modification - High Court at Calcutta (Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench), 01.07.2025, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J. (CRM(M)/24/2025 / CRAN/1/2025): Petitioner (on his advocate's submission that he is a practising Advocate and that the charge-sheet had been submitted and charges framed) sought waiver of the conditions of bail granted on April 09, 2025. The court held that the conditions to reside outside Mainaguri Police Station jurisdiction and to report once a week to the local Officer-in-Charge were 'directed against the trial of the case' and did not deserve relaxation with the trial imminent; however, since there were no complaints of non-compliance, the weekly reporting condition was modified to once a fortnight. All other conditions of the April 09, 2025 bail order stand unchanged. CRAN/1/2025 disposed of.

¶1

01.07.2025 Sl. No. 18 Court No.4 Arsad,(ARCR)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

¶3

In Re: An application for relaxation/ modification of condition of bail.

¶4

CRM(M)/24/2025 IA NO: CRAN/1/2025

¶5

SAYAN KABIR VS

¶6

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

¶7

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Biswarup Roy,

¶8

..…For the State CRAN/1/2025 is an application seeking modification of the conditions granting bail incorporated in the order dated April 09, 2025 passed in CRM(M)/24/2025.

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner happens to be a practicing Advocate. Moreover, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and charges have been framed. In consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that the conditions imposed in the order granting bail should be waived.

¶10

Learned Advocate for the State submits that the original order granting bail was passed in consideration of the materials in the case below as also taking into account that charge-sheet was already submitted before the bail was granted. As such, the conditions imposed by the order dated April 09, 2025, does not deserve to be waived.

¶11

It appears that the petitioner was granted bail by an order dated April 09, 2025 passed in CRM(M)/24/2025. The said bail order was subject to condition that the petitioner upon being released on bail shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station within

¶12

¶13

whose jurisdiction he will reside, once in a week until further orders and he shall not enter into the jurisdiction of Mainaguri Police Station until further orders and shall not meet or contact the de facto complainant and the persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not do any act prejudicial to the trial.

¶14

As noted above, the trial of the case is yet to be commenced. Charges stood framed. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution is likely to be taken up by learned Trial Court. In such facts and circumstances, the conditions to reside outside the jurisdiction of Mainaguri Police Station and to report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station where the petitioner takes abode once in a week is directed against the trial of the case and does not deserve to be relaxed at this stage where the trial is likely to commence. However, in consideration of the present situation and the likelihood of the commencement of the trial and also taking in to consideration that there are no complaints regarding non-compliance of the condition of the bail, the condition of the bail to meet the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station where the petitioner is residing once in a week is modified to the extent once in a fortnight.

¶15

All other conditions of the bail order dated April 09, 2025 shall remain the same.

¶16

CRAN/1/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

¶17

(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)

Sayan Kabir v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayan Kabir v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Pushparani Dutta Vs Ranajit Dutta & Ors.

Sanchita Majumder Vs C.E.S.C. Ltd.

Subhash Chandra Roy@Tena Roy Vs the State of West Bengal

Prakash Sarkar Vs the State of West Bengal

Sunil Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.