Dismissed¶11

Emrul Kayes @ Taitan v. the State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC3 Apr 2025CRM (DB)/335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected under Section 483 BNSS 2023; CRM (DB) 335 of 2025 decided 03.04.2025; petitioner Emrul Kayes @ Taitan; Gazole Police Station Case No. 610 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024; offences under Sections 310(2)/311 BNS 2023, Sections 25/27/35 Arms Act, Sections 3/4 Explosive Substances Act; custody exceeding 7 months; approximately 42 witnesses; trial completion bleak; State alleged mastermind role, recovery pursuant to petitioner's statement, criminal antecedent; case diary material considered; not a fit case for bail at this stage; case diary ordered returned; Suvra Ghosh, J.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the material available in the case diary, the Court held that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. ¶10

Emrul Kayes @ Taitan Vs the State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

11 03.04.2025 Ct.No.34 b.das Rejected

¶2

C.R.M. (DB) 335 of 2025

¶3

In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed in connection with Gazole Police Station Case No. 610 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 under Section 310(2)/311 of BNS, 2023 read with Section 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Section 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶4

And In Re : Emrul Kayes @ Taitan ... Petitioner. Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Imdadul Hoque Ms. Sagnika Banerjee Ms. Sarmistha Basak ... for the petitioner. Ms. Z. N. Khan Ms. Poulami Bose ... for the State.

¶5

Report, memo of evidence as well as photocopies of documents supplied to the petitioner under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted by the State are taken on record.

¶6

The petitioner is in custody for more than 7 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the principal accused. There are about 42 witnesses to be examined and completion of trial in near future is bleak. Further detention of the petitioner is not required.

¶7

Opposing the prayer learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the mastermind of the alleged offence and the layout for the offence as well as part of the

¶8

¶9

booty were recovered pursuant to statement made by the petitioner. Also, the petitioner has criminal antecedent.

¶10

In view of the material available in the case diary, this Court is inclined to hold that it is not a fit case where the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶12

The application for bail, being CRM (DB) 335 of 2025, is, thus, disposed of.

¶13

Case Diary be returned.

¶14

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

¶15

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶16

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)