Dismissed¶13

Biplab Murmu v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC16 Feb 2026CRM(M)/2489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM (M) 2489/2025, decided 16.02.2026 by Tirthankar Ghosh, J. — bail under S.439 CrPC/S.483 BNSS for murder charge (Ss.302/120B/34/201 IPC), Bamongola PS Case 106/2023; custody 2 yrs 7 months; 14/28 witnesses examined; no change of circumstances since CRM (DB) 648/2025 (obs. 06.05.2025); accused and deceased alone present at incident; bail refused; application dismissed; trial court directed to expedite remaining witnesses once vacancy filled.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the observations of 06.05.2025 in CRM (DB) 648 of 2025, there has been no change of circumstances till date. ¶9

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

¶1

16.02.2026 Court No.35. M/L.235. Rakib (Rejected)

¶2

CRM (M) 2489 of 2025

¶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 Bamongola Police Station Case no. 106 of 2023 dated 16.07.2023 under Sections 302/120B/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

And

¶5

In the matter of : Biplab Murmu.

¶6

……Petitioner. Mr. Amitabha Karmakar Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Partha Pratim Das Ms. Ratna Ghosh ……for the State.

¶7

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for two year seven months and has been charged for offence which may not be proved in course of the trial. Additionally, it has been submitted that presently the Court is lying vacant and there is no possibility of the trial progressing and only 14 witnesses out of the cited 28 witnesses have been examined till date and there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future.

¶8

Learned advocate for the State on the other hand refers to the post-mortem report as well as the attending circumstances which is revealed from the statement of other witnesses.

¶9

I have taken into account the submissions of both the parties as well as the observations made on 06.05.2025 in CRM (DB) 648 of 2025. Having regard to the observations made therein, I find that there has been no change of circumstances till date.

¶10

¶11

Accordingly, it is directed that if the learned Trial Court presently lying vacant, immediately after joining of the learned Court dates be fixed for progressing with the rest of the witnesses as majority of the independent witnesses have till date been examined.

¶12

Having considered the fact that the petitioner and the deceased were solely present at the house when the incident took place, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner.

¶13

Accordingly, CRM (M) 2489 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Biplab Murmu v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biplab Murmu v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabab Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Minajul Mondal @ Mandal Vs State of West Bengal

Subal Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal

Babar Shah @ Babar Ali Shah Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Jashimuddin Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal

Jane Alam Molla Vs State of West Bengal