Dismissed¶14

MD Salauddin @ Arman v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC5 Feb 2026CRM(M)/136/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM (M) 136 of 2026, decided 05-02-2026 by Tirthankar Ghosh, J.: bail application of Md. Salauddin @ Arman under S.483 BNSS 2023 dismissed after four years two months in custody and slow trial progress (6 of 31 witnesses examined); directions issued for a monthly three-day trial schedule, assessment of necessity of all chargesheet witnesses, bar on unnecessary adjournments, continuation of trial despite local Bar resolution, and renewal of bail prayer after six months; reference to rejection of a similarly placed accused's bail in CRM (M) 1887 of 2025 (09.12.2025).

What did the court decide?

The bail application is dismissed; however, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months from date. ¶11

MD Salauddin @ Arman Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

05-02-2026 CRM (M) 136 of 2026 (ct. no.35) S. De 265777

¶2

In Re: An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. And

¶3

In the matter of : Md. Salauddin @ Arman. …Petitioner . Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Mrs. Zainab Tanur, …for the petitioner. Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Atanu Ghosh, …for the State.

¶4

Report submitted by the State, be kept with the records.

¶5

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for four years two months and out of 31 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution till date 6 witnesses have been examined.

¶6

Learned advocate for the State submits that out of 6 witnesses who are produced before the Court only examination-in-chief has been completed of all and in respect of 2 of the witnesses examination-in-chief and crossexamination have been concluded. List of dates and events have been placed by the investigating officer of the case.

¶7

I have considered the earlier orders which have been passed and one of the similarly placed accused approached this Court whose bail was rejected in CRM (M) 1887 of 2025 on 09.12.2025. There are earlier directions by this Court also for expeditious trial.

¶8

Be that as it may, I direct the learned Trial Court that substantial time has lapsed. At this stage, this Court is not

¶9

¶10

assessing who contributed to the delay but it is directed that the schedule consisting of three days be fixed on each and every month. The prosecution be also directed to assess as to whether all the witnesses cited in the chargesheet are required for the purposes of this case.

¶11

Learned Trial Court is directed to see no unnecessary adjournment will be granted to any of the parties and the trial of the case would continue in spite of resolution of the local Bar. The petitioner would renew his prayer for bail after a period of six months from date.

¶12

State is directed to communicate this order to the

¶13

learned Trial Court.

¶14

Accordingly, CRM (M) 136 of 2026 is dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

MD Salauddin @ Arman v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Salauddin @ Arman v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arup Ray @ Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sanjoy Chandra Mandal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Asit Sardar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Motibur Rahaman @ Motiur Rahaman and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Rohit Gupta @ Rohit Kumar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Taj Mahammad Sk and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal