Dismissed¶15

Ram Narayan Yadav @ Narayan @ Munna v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC7 Apr 2025CRM (DB)/444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

bail rejected; delay in trial as sole ground; 17 witnesses, only one examined in part; 10 prosecution witnesses police personnel; earlier rejection by this Court and by Supreme Court on 26.07.2023; Bagnan PS Case 285/2021; petroleum pipeline offences; Indian Oil Corporation officials; video conferencing recording of evidence; direction to expedite trial; C.R.M. (DB) 444 of 2025; Suvra Ghosh, J.; 07.04.2025

What did the court decide?

No relief — bail prayer rejected at this stage; directions issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments and to permit recording of witness evidence through video conferencing where physical appearance is not possible. ¶15

Ram Narayan Yadav @ Narayan @ Munna Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose bail prayers were earlier rejected by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, should now be released on bail solely on the ground of delay in trial.

¶9

Court's answer

Upon consideration of the material on record, particularly the observations in the earlier orders rejecting the petitioner's prayer, bail is rejected at this stage.

¶12

Key takeaways

Considering the period of detention, the learned trial Court is directed to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, in accordance with law.obiter¶13
If witnesses are unable to appear before the learned trial Court physically to adduce evidence, their evidence may be recorded through video conferencing.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS (C.R.M. (DB) 444 of 2025, decided 07.04.2025, Suvra Ghosh, J.) in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case No. 285 of 2021 (Ss.379/511/427 IPC; Ss.15/16 Petroleum and Mineral Pipe Line (Acquisition of Right of User in Land Act) 1962; Ss.3/4 Protection of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Ss.3/4 Explosive Substances Act. 1908): bail rejected at this stage in view of the extremely serious nature of the allegations and earlier rejections of bail by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.07.2023. Sole ground urged was delay in trial — only one of 17 witnesses examined in part despite directions to expedite; the State noted 10 of the 17 prosecution witnesses are police personnel, the remaining 7 being public witnesses including Indian Oil Corporation officials. Trial Court directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments; witness evidence may be recorded through video conferencing where witnesses cannot appear physically.

¶1

07.04.2025

¶2

7 jb. jdt.

¶3

C.R.M. (DB) 444 of 2025

¶4

In the matter of : Ram Narayan Yadav @ Narayan @ Munna ... Petitioner.

¶5

In Re: An application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed on 22^nd January, 2025 in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case no. 285 of 2021 dated 09.06.2021 under Sections 379/511/427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 15/16 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipe Line (Acquisition of Right of User in Land Act) 1962 and under Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and under Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. 1908.

¶6

Mr. Ayan Basu Sk. Salim Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta Mr. Santanu Talukder … For the State

¶8

Report submitted by the State is taken on record.

¶9

Allegation against the petitioner is extremely serious in nature. Bail prayer of the petitioner has been turned down by this Court on earlier occasions. Such prayer has also been turned down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26^th July, 2023. The petitioner seeks bail solely on the ground of delay in trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 17 witnesses only one witness has been examined in part despite direction of this Court to expedite the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State submits that out of 17 prosecution witnesses 10 are police personnel. Remaining 7 witnesses are public witnesses including Indian Oil Corporation officials.

¶11

¶12

Upon consideration of the material on record particularly the observation made by this Court in the earlier orders rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶13

Considering the period of detention of the petitioner, learned trial Court is directed to take the proceeding to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordance with law.

¶14

If the witnesses are unable to appear before the learned trial Court for adducing evidence physically, their evidence may be recorded through video conferencing.

¶15

The application for bail is disposed of.

¶16

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

¶17

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Ram Narayan Yadav @ Narayan @ Munna v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Narayan Yadav @ Narayan @ Munna v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahadeb Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Rukshar Begum @ Ruksa Begum @ Puja and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Dilip Rabidas Vs the State of West Bengal

Pankaj Sarkar@Kalu Vs State of West Bengal

Prakash Gurung Vs State of West Bengal

Santu Roy @ Paltu Vs State of West Bengal