Dismissed¶19

Mahesh Sharma v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC23 Feb 2026CRM(M)/248/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail dismissal under section 483 BNSS / section 439 CrPC; Hirapur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2018; sections 302/120B IPC; sections 25(1B)(a)/27 Arms Act; murder and conspiracy; prolonged custody over two and a half years; slow trial pace (19 of 33 witnesses examined); earlier Division Bench direction of 27.02.2025 in CRM (DB) 45 of 2025 to expedite trial; petitioner's prior evasion of legal process weighed against bail; 90-day deadline for completing prosecution evidence; liberty to renew bail prayer; CRM (M) 248 of 2026; Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; order dated 23.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; Trial Court directed to complete examination of prosecution witnesses within 90 days; petitioner permitted to renew the bail prayer after that period. ¶19

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

¶1

62 23.02.2026 ss

¶2

CRM (M) 248 of 2026

¶3

In the matter of : An application for bail under section 483 of BNSS which corresponds to section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed in connection with Hirapur P.S. Case No. 226 of 2018 dated 04.09.2018 under sections 302/120B of IPC read with sections 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Mahesh Sharma

¶6

Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniket Mitra Mr. S.K. Mondal

¶7

… … for the petitioner

¶8

Mr. Bitosok Banerjee Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury

¶9

… … for the State

¶10

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Avik Ghatak Mr. F. Imam Mr. S. Saha

¶11

… … for the de facto complainant

¶12

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than two and half years and the evidence till date which has transpired do not inspire confidence and there is no possibility of any conviction.

¶13

The evidence of PW 8 which points to the accused also do not narrate any circumstance by which the complicity of the petitioner can be assessed in connection with the instant case.

¶14

I find that the petitioner also approached the Court when the Division Bench in its order dated 27.02.2025 in CRM (DB)

¶15

¶16

45 of 2025 was pleased to observe that only 4 out of 33 witnesses have been examined. There was a direction to expedite the trial. It has been informed presently that 19 witnesses in total have been examined as such 15 witnesses have been examined within a year. Prosecution intends to examine 7 more witnesses.

¶17

I find from the list which has been supplied by the learned advocate on behalf of the State that all these 7 witnesses are easily available in view of all of them belonging to the government departments.

¶18

Having considered the stage of trial and the fact that earlier the petitioner has evaded the process of law for a considerable period of time, I think this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in CRM (M) 248 of 2026 is dismissed.

¶20

However, the learned Trial Court is directed to ensure that the examination of prosecution witnesses be completed within a period of 90 days from date.

¶21

Petitioner would renew the prayer for bail after the aforesaid time period is over.

¶22

Report filed by the State be kept with the record.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)