Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Jane Alam Molla Vs State of West Bengal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Calcutta HC (2026)

Home
Calcutta HC
2026
Jane Alam Molla Vs State of West BengalJane Alam Molla v. State of West Bengal

Disposed¶14

Jane Alam Molla v. State of West Bengal

Bail – Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, 1973)

Calcutta HC16 Feb 2026CRM(M)/238/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, C.R.M. (M) 238 of 2026, decided 16.02.2026 by Tirthankar Ghosh, J. Bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 / Section 439 CrPC 1973 in Magrahat P.S. Case No. 133 of 2022 (Sections 302/34 IPC; Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959). Grounds: about four years' custody, 16-17 of 42 witnesses examined, slow trial. Held: bail rejected due to prior merit-based rejection by co-ordinate Bench; prosecution to conclude witnesses within six months from next date. Keywords: prolonged incarceration, speedy trial, repeated bail application, murder case, Arms Act, time-bound trial direction, Jane Alam Molla v. State.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; prosecution directed to conclude its witnesses within six months from the next date fixed; opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor kept with the record; bail application CRM (M) 238 of 2026 disposed of.

Why is it important?

It would not be fit to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, since his previous bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench after vividly considering the merits of the case. ¶11

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for bail rejected; prosecution directed to conclude its witnesses within six months from the next date fixed; opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor kept with the record; bail application CRM (M) 238 of 2026 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody for about four years with only 16 of 42 charge-sheeted witnesses examined, should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

It would not be fit to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, since his previous bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench after vividly considering the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

Since the prosecution intends to examine 5/6 more witnesses, efforts are to be taken to conclude the prosecution witnesses within six months from the next date fixed.

Key takeaways

The Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and rejected the prayer for bail.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, 1973) - petitioner in custody about four years in Magrahat Police Station Case No. 133 of 2022 under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 - only 16/17 of 42 charge-sheeted witnesses examined despite earlier expediting directions - previous bail application already rejected on merits by a co-ordinate Bench - bail rejected at this stage - prosecution (intending to examine 5/6 further witnesses) directed to conclude prosecution witnesses within six months from the next date fixed - application disposed of (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; 16.02.2026).

A

16.02.2026 Item No.31 Ct.No.35 dc.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

Rejected

C.R.M. (M) 238 of 2026

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Magrahat Police Station Case No. 133 of 2022 dated 09.04.2022 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

And In Re : Jane Alam Molla ... Petitioner. Mr. Joy Chakraborty, Mr. Safiqul Islam ... For the Petitioner. Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Mr. Sufi Kamal ... For the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for about four years and till date only 16 witnesses have been examined, out of 42 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. Earlier there were directions for expediting the process of trial, but there has been no efforts on the part of the prosecution to take the trial to its logical conclusion.

Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that 17 witnesses have been completed and examination of 18^th witness is in progress. State intends to examine 5/6 more charge-sheeted witnesses.

Having considered the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor which has been submitted by the learned

2

advocate for the State before this Court, I direct that at this stage, it would not be fit for releasing the petitioner on bail in view of the previous bail application being not only rejected, but the same was done after taking into account the merits of the case being vividly considered by the co-ordinate Bench. Having regard to the fact that prosecution intends to examine 5/6 witnesses, I direct that efforts be taken to conclude the prosecution witnesses within a period of six months from the next date so fixed.

At this stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected .

Opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor submitted by the learned advocate for the State be kept with the record.

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 238 of 2026, is, thus, disposed of.

All concerned 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 with all requisite formalities.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, in custody for about four years with only 16 of 42 charge-sheeted witnesses examined, should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.¶7
The court held
It would not be fit to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, since his previous bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench after vividly considering the merits of the case.ratio¶11

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 4 enactments

AI extract

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023483¶5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973439¶5
Indian Penal Code, 1860302/34¶5
Arms Act, 195925/27¶5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, 1973) filed in connection with Magrahat Police Station Case No. 133 of 2022 dated 09.04.2022 under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959.¶5
Prior proceeding
Petitioner in custody for about four years; only 16 of 42 charge-sheeted witnesses examined despite earlier directions to expedite trial.¶7
Prior proceeding
Earlier expediting directions went uncomplied with; prosecution made no efforts to conclude the trial.¶7
Prior proceeding
State's status report: 17 witnesses completed, 18th witness under examination, prosecution intends to examine 5/6 more charge-sheeted witnesses.¶8
Prior proceeding
A previous bail application of the petitioner was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench after considering the merits of the case.¶11

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Jane Alam Molla¶6
Mr. Joy Chakraborty, Mr. Safiqul Islam
respondent
State¶6
Mr. Iqbal Kabir, Mr. Sufi Kamal

Coram

AI extract

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.author¶17

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Calcutta HC
Decided on: 16 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 27 Jan 2026
Case no.: CRM(M)/238/2026
CNR: WBCHCA0030372026
Topic: Murder and Culpable Homicide
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: C.R.M. (M)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Tirthankar Ghosh

Nabab Sk Vs State of West Bengal
13 Feb 2026
Minajul Mondal @ Mandal Vs State of West Bengal
13 Feb 2026
Subal Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal
13 Feb 2026
Babar Shah @ Babar Ali Shah Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.
16 Feb 2026
Biplab Murmu Vs State of West Bengal
16 Feb 2026
Jashimuddin Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal
16 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Jane Alam Molla v. State of West Bengal, CRM(M)/238/2026 (CAL), decided on 16 February 2026.

The Calcutta High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023483
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973439
Indian Penal Code, 1860302/34
Arms Act, 195925/27

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, 1973) filed in connection with Magrahat Police Station Case No. 133 of 2022 dated 09.04.2022 under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27 Arms Act, 1959.
Petitioner in custody for about four years; only 16 of 42 charge-sheeted witnesses examined despite earlier directions to expedite trial.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

Parties & counsel