Devendra Mishra Vs State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2026)

Devendra Mishra Vs State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; as a matter of last chance the State was directed to expedite the trial and conclude it within three months; the trial court was directed to grant no unnecessary adjournments, to continue the trial despite any resolution of the local bar, and to record any non-cooperation by the accused persons; the State was directed to communicate the order to the trial court through the investigating officer or any other appropriate officer.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with AJC Bose B. Garden Police Station Case No.218 dated December 29, 2020 (Ss.302/326/120B/34 IPC read with Ss.25/27 Arms Act, 1959). +1 more

Court's answer

The bail application is dismissed at this stage: considering the merits of the prosecution case and the fact that the witnesses were injured, the Court, as a matter of last chance, instead of releasing the petitioner, directed the State to expedite the trial and take it to its logical conclusion within three months.

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties; the trial shall continue in spite of any resolution of the local bar; and if there is any non-cooperation on behalf of the accused persons, specific observations shall be recorded in the respective order by the learned trial court.

Key takeaways

The State, through the investigating officer of the case or any other appropriate officer, is to immediately communicate this order to the learned trial court.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) sought in connection with AJC Bose B. Garden Police Station Case No.218 dated December 29, 2020 under Sections 302/326/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Petitioner in custody for about 5½ years with only a few witnesses examined by the prosecution; the de facto complainant opposed bail citing the petitioner's antecedents; the State stated it had decided to reduce the witnesses to 20 and to conclude the trial. Held, dismissing the application as a matter of last chance: the State is directed to expedite the trial and take it to its logical conclusion within three months; the trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment, the trial shall continue in spite of any resolution of the local bar, and any non-cooperation on behalf of the accused shall be specifically recorded; the State is to immediately communicate the order to the trial court through the investigating officer or any other appropriate officer. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

D/L276

27.07.2026

Bpg.

dismissed

C.R.M. (M) 1535 of 2026

In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Corresponding to Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with AJC Bose B. Garden Police Station Case No.218 dated December 29, 2020 under Sections 302/326/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959;

Devendra Mishra Versus

The State of West Bengal

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Sourav Chatterjeee Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee Mr. Soumya Basu Roy Chowdhuri Mr. Abir Dalui Ms. Madhurai Sinha Ms. Upasana Banerjee Mr. Bisal Roy. ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Mr. Kalidas Saha. …for the State.

Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee Ms. Nahid Ahmed. …for the de facto complainant.

Mr. Krishan Ray Ms. Isita Kundu Mr. Subhajit Mukherjee. …for the victim.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is in custody for about 5½ years and only few witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there

2

are antecedents of the present petitioner.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the State has decided to reduce the number of witnesses 20 and all efforts would be exerted to conclude the trial.

Considering the merits of the prosecution case and the fact that the witnesses were injured which is reflected from the other cases, as a matter of last chance, I direct the State to expedite the trial and take the trial to its logical conclusion within a period of three months. It is directed that the learned trial court will not grant any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and the trial of the case would continue in spite of any resolution of local bar. If there is any non-cooperation on behalf of the accused persons, specific observations be recorded in the respective order by the learned trial court.

Accordingly, CRM(M)1535 of 2026 is dismissed at this

stage.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would, through the investigating officer of the case or any other appropriate officer, immediately communicate this order to the learned trial court.

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

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

3