Dismissed¶¶15

Bappa Ghosh and Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC18 Feb 2026CRM(M)/264/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, C.R.M. (M) 264 of 2026, decided 18.02.2026 by Tirthankar Ghosh, J.: bail under S. 483 BNSS 2023 rejected where trial at advanced stage (15 of about 20/21 witnesses examined) in Chakdaha PS Case No. 926 of 2025 under Ss. 310(2)/317(3)/61(2) BNS 2023; petitioners in custody about five months; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the trial is at an advanced stage (15 witnesses examined, 5/6 more proposed), it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioners on bail at this stage; the prayer for bail is rejected. ¶¶12

Bappa Ghosh and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

¶1

18.02.2026

¶2

Item No.16 Ct.No.35

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

¶4

dc.

¶5

Rejected

¶6

C.R.M. (M) 264 of 2026

¶7

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 926 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 under Sections 310(2)/317(3)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶8

And In Re : Bappa Ghosh and another ... Petitioners. Mr. Anand Keshari, Mr. Nirupam Dhali, Ms. Aparna Koiri, Ms. Pubali Debnath, Ms. Dhriti Chanda, Ms. Sneha Bhattacharya ... For the Petitioners. Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Sourath Nandi ... For the State.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody for about five months and they being bank employees have been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. It has also been submitted that there is no legally admissible evidence so far as the present petitioners are concerned and there is no relation between the accused persons who committed the offence and the present petitioners.

¶10

Learned advocate appearing for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are CDRs and other communications as also leading statement which substantiate the prosecution case.

¶11

¶12

Having considered that the trial is at an advanced stage and 15 witnesses have already been examined and the prosecution intends to examine 5/6 more witnesses in support of its case, I am of the view that at this stage, it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioners on bail. As such, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected .

¶13

Report submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the State be kept with the record.

¶14

A copy of the report be handed over to learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

¶15

The application for bail, being CRM (M) 264 of 2026, is, thus, dismissed.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)