Dismissed¶11

Kachan Sk @ Kanchan and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC12 Feb 2026CRM(M)/210/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of regular bail sought under Section 439 CrPC/Section 483 BNSS in Mangalkote P.S. Case 54/2025 (BNS 2023 offences incl. Ss. 103(1), 109(1), 118, 117(2), 126(2), 189(2), 61(2)); post-committal stage, witnesses pending, associates' antecedents cited; risk of trial being jeopardized; bail refused despite seven months custody and false-implication plea; single-judge order, 12.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court took into account that the case had been committed, that witnesses remained to be examined, and that the associates of the petitioners had antecedents. ¶8

Kachan Sk @ Kanchan and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

12.02.2026 Court No.35. D/L.19. Rakib (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (M) 210 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 Mangalkote Police Station case no. 54 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 under Sections 189(2)/126(2)/118(1)/117(2)/118(2)/109(1)/103(1)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Kachan Sk @ Kanchan & Anr. ……Petitioners. Mr. Deptendu Banerjee Mr. Sayan Mukherjee ……for the Petitioners. Mr. Md. Adil Badr, Jr. Govt. Adv, Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee ……for the State. Mr. Suman Chakraborty .....for the de-facto complainant.

¶6

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for nearly seven months and they have been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. It has further been contended that petitioners have no animosities with the de-facto complainant and has been implicated as they are acquaintance of the accused.

¶7

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the present petitioners intercepted the vehicle of the de-facto complainant with the motorcycle used by them, consequently the incident happened and the father of the de-facto complainant was assaulted to death.

¶8

I have taken into account the facts that the case has been committed, there are witnesses to be examined and the associates of the present petitioner are having antecedents.

¶9

¶10

Having considered the stage of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial may be jeopardized if the petitioners at this stage are released on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners in CRM (M) 210 of 2026 is dismissed.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)