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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; petitioners granted liberty to approach this Court after the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses is over; learned Magistrate directed to split up the trial and commit the case to the court of Sessions preferably within three months; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (Durgesh Mondal & Anr.), in custody for about 11 months with charge-sheet submitted, should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC / Section 483 BNSS in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No.560 of 2025.

Court's answer

Having regard to the genesis of the consequences of the case, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected and CRM (M) 679 of 2026 was dismissed.

Key takeaways

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach this Court after the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses is over.ratio¶18
The learned Magistrate in seisin of the case was directed to split up the trial at the earliest and commit the case to the court of Sessions preferably within three months for speedy disposal.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — S.439 CrPC / S.483 BNSS — Calcutta High Court (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) — Petitioners (Durgesh Mondal & Anr.) in custody 11 months, charge-sheet filed, in Raghunathganj P.S. Case No.560 of 2025 (ss. 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/103(1), 109(1)/3(5) BNS; ss. 3/4 ES Act) — State case: petitioner no.2 hurled a bomb causing one death and severe injuries to another; petitioner no.1 allegedly assaulted with a bamboo stick and/or carried the bombs — Held, having regard to the genesis and consequences of the case, petitioners not inclined to be enlarged on bail; prayer for bail rejected and application dismissed; liberty to petitioners to approach the Court after deposition of vulnerable witnesses; learned Magistrate directed to split up the trial and commit the case to the court of Sessions preferably within three months for speedy disposal.

01.04.2026

Serial no. 137 [G.S.D]

CRM (M) 679 of 2026

In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No.560 of 2025 dated 27.04.2025 u/s 126(2)/117(2)/118(2)/103(1), 109(1)/3(5) of the BNS and 3/4 of the ES Act.

-And-

In the matter of : Durgesh Mondal &Anr.

Ms. Shabana Hasin Ms. Samima Akter Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta Ms. Dhanasree Biswas

… Petitioner(s) … for the Petitioner(s) … for the State-respondent(s)

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the charges and the persons who have been similarly situated have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court.

Additionally, it has been submitted that the petitioners are in custody for 11 months and charge-sheet has been submitted, as such, further detention of the present petitioners is unwarranted.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner no.2 hurled the bomb causing death of one person and severe injuries to the another.

According to some of the witnesses, petitioner no.1 assaulted with the bamboo stick and, according to some of

2

the witnesses, he was carrying the bombs which was finally hurled by the co-accused.

Having regard to the genesis of the consequences of the present case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is

Rejected.

However, the petitioners would approach this Court after the evidence of the vulnerable witnesses is over.

The learned Magistrate in seisin of the case is directed to split up the trial at the earliest and by exhausting the process of law preferably within the period of three months commit the case to the court of Sessions for speedy disposal.

Accordingly, CRM (M) 679 of 2026 is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.

Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta.

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

3