Dismissed¶20

Ashim Baidya v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC3 Feb 2026CRM(M)/2023/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ashim Baidya bail rejected; CRM(M)/2023/2025; Calcutta High Court; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; order dated 03.02.2026; bail under S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS; Budge Budge P.S. Case No.252/2023 dated 12.08.2023; Sections 302/201/120B IPC (murder, disappearance of evidence, criminal conspiracy); custody two years six months; 19 of 41 witnesses examined; PW19 concluded; six witnesses to be examined by 15.05.2026; no unnecessary adjournments; trial to continue despite local Bar resolution; liberty to renew bail after time-period; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No bail at this stage; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court after expiry of the time-period fixed (completion of the six witnesses' evidence by 15.05.2026). ¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail at this stage; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court after expiry of the time-period fixed (completion of the six witnesses' evidence by 15.05.2026).

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for two years and six months in Budge Budge P.S. Case No.252/2023 under Sections 302/201/120B IPC, with the trial part-heard (19 of 41 witnesses examined, PW19 concluded, six witnesses remaining), ought to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS.

¶12

Court's answer

Bail declined at this stage: having considered the submissions, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, notwithstanding custody of two years and six months and the part-heard trial.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the evidence of all six remaining witnesses by 15th May, 2026.

¶17

Key takeaways

No unnecessary adjournments are to be given to any party, and the trial is to continue even if the local Bar resolves otherwise.ratio¶17
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again after expiry of the aforesaid time-period fixed for completion of the remaining evidence.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.), order dated 03.02.2026 in CRM(M)/2023/2025: application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for bail by Ashim Baidya, arising out of Budge Budge P.S. Case No.252/2023 dated 12.08.2023 under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, rejected at this stage. Grounds noted: petitioner in custody two years and six months; of 41 witnesses cited only 19 examined, evidence of PW19 concluded, and six more witnesses to be examined. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the evidence of all six witnesses by 15th May, 2026, without granting unnecessary adjournments to any party and with the trial continuing despite any resolution of the local Bar. The petitioner was left at liberty to approach the Court after expiry of that period, and the application was dismissed.

¶1

103. 03.02.2026 (M/L) Court No.35 ( Tanmoy )

¶2

Rejected

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

¶4

CRM(M)/2023/2025

¶5

In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising out of Budge Budge P.S. Case No.252/2023 dated 12.08.2023 under Sections 302/201/120B of Indian Penal Code.

¶6

And

¶7

In the matter of: - ASHIM BAIDYA Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Rajdeep Sengupta Mr. P.K. Dutta, APP Mr. Santanu Deb Roy Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Safdar Azam Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukder

…petitioner.

…for the petitioner.

…for the State.

…for the de facto complainant.

¶12

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for two years and six months and out of 41 witnesses cited by the prosecution, till date only 19 witnesses have been examined. He prays for bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the de facto complainant submits that the evidence of PW19 is over.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the State submits on instructions that six more witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution.

¶15

Having considered the same, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, at this stage.

¶16

¶17

However, I direct the learned Trial Court to conclude the evidence of all the six witnesses by 15^th May, 2026. No unnecessary adjournments be given to any of the parties and the trial of the case would continue in spite of any resolution of the local Bar.

¶18

The petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court

¶19

after expiry of the aforesaid time-period.

¶20

Accordingly, the application being CRM(M)/2023/2025 is dismissed.

¶21

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

¶22

Criminal Section is directed to make available urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶23

(TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.)

Ashim Baidya v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashim Baidya 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

Suman Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal

Sanjoy Debnath Vs the State of West Bengal

Nitai Mondal @ Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Moses Zutah @ Jutah Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Maherul Sk Vs State of West Bengal

MD Musa Haque Molla @ Moulabi MD Mojaffer Saheb Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.