Allowed¶9

Bappa Roy@Neel v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC11 Apr 2025CRM(DB)/183/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail condition relaxation/modification; CRAN 1 of 2025; C.R.M. (DB) 183 of 2025; Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench Jalpaiguri; Uday Kumar J.; Bappa Roy @ Neel; Haldibari Police Station; reporting to OC/IC twice a week; charge-sheet submitted June 11, 2024; investigation concluded; condition redundant; other bail conditions remain intact; decided 31.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

CRAN 1 of 2025 allowed and disposed of: the condition to meet the OC/IC of the Haldibari Police Station twice a week in the bail order dated April 11, 2025 is relaxed; all other bail conditions remain intact and binding. ¶9

Bappa Roy@Neel Vs the State of West Bengal — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the condition in the bail order dated April 11, 2025 requiring the petitioner to report to the OC/IC of Haldibari Police Station twice a week should be relaxed following submission of the charge-sheet.

¶2

Court's answer

The primary objective of a condition requiring periodic reporting to the police station is generally to ensure the accused's availability for investigation and to monitor their conduct during the investigative phase.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

With the submission of the charge-sheet on June 11, 2024, the investigation has substantially concluded; the utility and necessity of the twice-weekly reporting condition have demonstrably become redundant, and insisting on its continuation would impose an undue burden on the petitioner without any practical or legal purpose.

¶5

Key takeaways

The condition to meet the OC/IC of the Haldibari Police Station twice in a week, as stipulated in the bail order dated April 11, 2025, is hereby relaxed.ratio¶7
All other terms and conditions contained in the bail order dated April 11, 2025 shall remain intact and continue to be binding on the petitioner.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Appellate Side), C.R.M. (DB) 183 of 2025 / CRAN 1 of 2025 (Uday Kumar, J., 31.07.2025): Bappa Roy @ Neel sought relaxation of the condition in his bail order dated April 11, 2025 requiring him to report twice a week to the OC/IC of Haldibari Police Station. The charge-sheet had been submitted on June 11, 2024, and the State conceded the condition was no longer necessary. Holding that such periodic-reporting conditions serve to ensure the accused's availability during investigation and to monitor conduct in the investigative phase, and that with the charge-sheet filed the investigation had substantially concluded making the condition redundant and burdensome, the Court relaxed the twice-weekly reporting condition while keeping all other terms of the bail order intact and binding.

¶1

JPD-02 Ct No.04 31.07.2025 (JM)

¶2

Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side

¶3

C.R.M. (DB) 183 of 2025 With I.A. No. C.R.A.N. 1 OF 2025

¶4

In re: An application for Modification/Relaxation of Bail.

¶5

In the matter of : BAPPA ROY @ NEEL.

¶6

……Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Puspen Barman, Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik

¶8

……For the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP, Mr. Ujjwal Luksom

¶10

…….For the State.

¶11

CRAN 1 of 2025, is an application for modification/relaxation of a specific condition stipulated in the bail order dated April 11, 2025.

¶12

The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted conditional bail on April 11, 2025, which included, inter alia, a condition that the petitioner shall report to the Officer-in-Charge (OC) or Inspector-in-Charge (IC) of the Haldibari Police Station twice a week. It is prayed that this particular condition be relaxed, as its continued imposition is no longer necessary.

¶13

¶14

Learned Advocate for the State, upon being apprised of the matter, submits that the charge-sheet in the instant case has already been submitted on June 11, 2024. In light of the submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Advocate for the State candidly concedes that the condition requiring the petitioner to meet the OC/IC of the said police station twice a week is indeed no longer necessary.

¶15

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates for both the petitioner and the State, and having perused the records, this Court finds merit in the prayer for modification. The primary objective of such a condition, requiring periodic reporting to the police station, is generally to ensure the accused's availability for investigation and to monitor their conduct during the investigative phase.

¶16

However, with the submission of the charge-sheet on June 11, 2024, the investigation in the case has substantially concluded. Consequently, the utility and necessity of the condition requiring the petitioner to report to the OC/IC twice a week have demonstrably become redundant. Insisting on the continuation of such a condition would impose an undue burden on the petitioner without serving any practical or legal purpose in the changed circumstances.

¶17

Therefore, this Court is fully convinced with the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, which is also supported by the stand taken by the learned Advocate for the State.

¶18

¶19

Accordingly, the condition to meet the OC/IC of the Haldibari Police Station twice in a week, as stipulated in the bail order dated April 11, 2025, is hereby relaxed.

¶20

It is clarified that all other terms and conditions contained in the bail order dated April 11, 2025, shall remain intact and continue to be binding on the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, CRAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

¶22

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Bappa Roy@Neel v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bappa Roy@Neel 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

Smt. Punwasia Devi Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata & Ors. '

Debasish Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Sarat Chandra Mondal Vs Juthika Mondal

Nisar Ahmed @ Mohammad Nisar Ahmed Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Jaydeb Sardar & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Puneet Satyawadi Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.