Dismissed¶14

Unsahak @ Unshak v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC28 Jul 2026CRM(M)/1564/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order dated 28.07.2026 dismissing a bail application (CRM (M) 1564 of 2026) by Unsahak @ Unshak, accused under Sections 364/302/201/120B IPC in Harischandrapur PS case 1276 of 2023; bail refused at this stage despite about four months' custody and late surfacing of his name in the charge-sheet, with liberty to renew after deposition of vulnerable witnesses; grounds included the deceased's slit throat and trial delay caused by absconding accused.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the overall circumstances, the court declined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. ¶12

Unsahak @ Unshak Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

28.07.2026 Court No.35. D/L.287. Rakib (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (M) 1564 of 2026

¶3

In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Harischandrapur Police Station case no. 1276 of 2023 dated 17.12.2023 under Sections 364/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Unsahak @ Unshak. Mr. Asfak Ahammed Mr. Bhaskar Seth ……for the State. Ms. Rubina Akhtar

¶6

……Petitioner. .....for the Petitioner. ……for the State. ......for the De-facto complainant.

¶7

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is in custody for four months and there has been no progress in the case, as such petitioner prays of bail. Additionally, it has been submitted that petitioner was not named in the FIR and all on a sudden his name transpired in the charge-sheet, as such he was not having knowledge regarding the incident and has been subsequently arrested.

¶8

Learned advocate appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that case was registered in the year 2023 and the petitioner was evading the process of law for more than two and half years.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing for the de-facto complainant is present and opposes the prayer for bail.

¶10

¶11

I have taken into account the basic facts which resulted in registration of FIR and it is found from the records that the throat of the deceased was slit. The trial could not commence because of accused person absconding.

¶12

Having considered the overall circumstances, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

¶13

Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of vulnerable witnesses are over.

¶14

Accordingly, CRM (M) No. 1564 of 2026 is dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)