Dismissed¶16

Bhramar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC22 Jan 2026CRM(M)/2914/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application dismissed under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS; petitioner Bhramar Sarkar; accused in Kaliyaganj Police Station Case No.539 of 2023 dated 24.12.2023 under Sections 302/201/120B IPC; State of West Bengal; 751 days detention; parity plea citing bail granted in CRM(M)1910 of 2025; trial evidence advanced (21 of 25 proposed witnesses examined, 9 more intended); trial court directed to continue trial fairly; order by Tirthankar Ghosh, J.; dated 22.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the manner in which the case is progressing, at this belated stage it is not fit and proper to grant bail to the petitioner despite his detention for 751 days. ¶15

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

D/L18 22.01.2026

Bpg.

dismissed

C.R.M. (M) 2914 of 2025

¶5

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, 2023filed in connection with Kaliyaganj Police Station Case No.539 of 2023 dated 24.12.2023 under Sections 302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code;

¶6

Bhramar Sarkar Versus The State of West Bengal Mr. Anish Tiwari. …for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Banerjee Ms. Pallavi Priyadarshee. …for the State.

¶8

Mr. Tanmay Biswas Ms. Antara Mukherjee. …for the de facto complainant.

¶9

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

¶10

that similarly placed accused person has already been granted bail in CRM(M)1910 of 2025.

¶11

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the proper picture was not presented out of proposed 25 witnesses, 21 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. Prosecution intends to examine 9 more witnesses.

¶12

Be that as it may, within a schedule period the evidence of the case has been progressing, substantial evidence has already been recorded and, at this stage, granting of bail will eclipse the

¶13

¶14

facts of the case with that of the period of detention.

¶15

Having considered the manner in which the case is progressing, I am of the view that at this belated stage, it will not be fit and proper to grant bail to the petitioner in spite of his detention for a period of 751 days. Learned trial court would in its usual fairness proceed with the trial of the case.

¶16

Accordingly, CRM(M) 2914 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶17

Report submitted by the State be kept with the record.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Bhramar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhramar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabiruddin Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Rana Hemram @ Rana Hembram Vs State of West Bengal

Pijush Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal

Akash Karmakar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Utpal Gupta Vs State of West Bengal

Ajim Sk @ Sk Azim @ Azim Sk Vs State of West Bengal