Lalbabu Kumar Vs the State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2025)

Lalbabu Kumar Vs the State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Lalbabu Kumar, in custody for about two years in connection with Saktigarh Police Station Case No. 86 of 2023 (under Sections 302/307/326/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act), should be released on bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

The petitioner is similarly circumstanced with co-accused Indrajit Giri whose bail prayer was turned down on 15th July, 2024; the only distinction is that the petitioner was not identified by PW 4 in Court, but PW 4 subsequently explained his inability to identify the petitioner, and PW 4's evidence suggests involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the material on record and the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage; the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

Key takeaways

Considering the period of detention of the petitioner, the 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.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 arising from Saktigarh Police Station Case No. 86 of 2023 dated 01.04.2023 under Sections 302/307/326/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act — petitioner in custody for about 2 years, named by co-accused Avijit Mondal who stands released on bail — petitioner held similarly circumstanced with co-accused Indrajit Giri whose bail prayer was turned down by this Court on 15th July, 2024 — only distinction was non-identification of the petitioner by P.W. 4 in Court, but P.W. 4 subsequently explained his inability to identify the petitioner and his evidence suggests the petitioner's involvement — State opposed bail citing theft of the vehicles used in the murder, conspiracy, mobile tower location, and trial delay attributable to the accused — prayer for bail rejected at this stage; however, the learned trial Court directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.

26 04.04.2025 Ct.No.34 b.das Rejected

C.R.M. (DB) 627 of 2025

In Re : An application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed in connection with Saktigarh Police Station Case No. 86 of 2023 dated 01.04.2023 under Sections 302/307/326/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act.

And In Re : Lalbabu Kumar ... Petitioner.

Ms. Snigdha Saha ... for the petitioner. Mr. Rudradipta Nandy Mr. S. Bhattacharya Mr. Asif Dewan ... for the State.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 2 years. He was named by the co accused Avijit Mondal, who has been released on bail. The petitioner stands on a better footing than accused Avijit Mondal and he can at best be held responsible for providing the offending vehicle from Delhi. His further detention is not required and he may be granted bail. Learned counsel referred to the examination of P.W. 4 before the learned trial Court wherein the witness has failed to identify the petitioner in Court.

Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner and co accused Indrajit Giri committed theft of the two vehicles used for the murder of the victim and the crime was committed in connivance and conspiracy with the petitioner and other co accused. The

2

mobile tower location of the petitioner also suggests that involvement of the petitioner in the crime. It is also submitted that the delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner and the other co accused as cross examination of one of the investigating officers is continuing for 4 days.

I have considered the material on record. The petitioner appears to be similarly circumstanced with co accused Indrajit Giri whose bail prayer was turned down by this Court on 15^th July, 2024. The only distinction between the petitioner and the co accused is that the petitioner was not identified by PW 4 in Court. However, P.W. 4 has subsequently explained his inability to identify the petitioner. His evidence suggests involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

Considering the material available on record as well as role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. Prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

However, considering the period of detention of the petitioner, the 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.

The application for bail is thus disposed of.

Case Diary be returned.

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

3

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

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)