Surajit Sikdar Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

Surajit Sikdar Vs State of West Bengal — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, implicated in Baranagar Police Station Case No. 353 of 2025 (offences under Ss. 310(3) and 317(3) BNS 2023), ought to be released on bail under S. 483 BNSS 2023.

Court's answer

Humanitarian grounds urged by the petitioner (recent death of his wife, children who are studying) cannot substitute for an assessment of the case; the Court held that a court of law has to go into the merits of the case before granting bail.

Ratio / Principle

In considering the bail prayer the Court expressly took into account the gravity of the situation arising from the alleged offences.

Key takeaways

Because the case had very recently been committed to the court of sessions and the date had been fixed for consideration of charges, the Court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application (C.R.M. (M) 93 of 2026) under S. 483 BNSS 2023 by Surajit Sikdar, in connection with Baranagar Police Station Case No. 353 of 2025 dated 05.10.2025 (S. 310(3) BNS 2023, with S. 317(3) added), REJECTED (decided 17.02.2026). The petitioner pressed for release on stringent conditions on humanitarian grounds — his wife's recent death (last rites had been permitted by the Court's order of 30.01.2026, with four days' parole earlier granted for the related ceremonies) and two children who are studying. State counsel opposed, submitting the petitioner's involvement in a dacoity at a jewellery shop wherein 15.5 kgs of gold was looted and about 640 grams recovered from his house, and that the shop owner was killed during commission of the offence. The single-member bench (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.), while taking into account the gravity of the situation, held that humanitarian pleas cannot displace assessment of the merits ('a court of law has got to go into the merits of the case') and, the case having just been committed to sessions with consideration of charges pending, declined to release the petitioner on bail at that stage. The report of the Superintendent, Dum Dum Correctional Home, was ordered kept with the record.

D/L17

C.R.M. (M) 93 of 2026

17.02.2026

Bpg. In Re: An application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Rejected Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Baranagar Police Station Case No.353 of 2025 dated 05.10.2025 under Section 310(3) and adding Section 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitya, 2023;

Surajit Sikdar Versus State of West Bengal Mr. Subhasish Pachhal

Ms. Dipa Bhattacharya.

…for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Imam

Ms. Sonali Bhar.

…for the State.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is in a devastated state as his wife has already expired recently, he has got two children who are studying and, as such, on any stringent conditions, he may be released on bail.

Learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for bail

and submits that the petitioner was involved in a dacoity of a jewellery shop wherein 15.5 kgs of gold was looted and about 640 grams were recovered from the house of the present petitioner. It has also been submitted that the owner of the shop was killed in course of the alleged commission of the offence.

I have taken into account the gravity of the situation but so far as the petitioner’s personal issues were concerned, firstly, the petitioner on 30.01.2026 by this Court’s order was allowed to perform the last rites of his wife. So far as the other ceremonial

2

occasions relating to the last rites are concerned, four days parole was granted. But a court of law has got to go into the merits of the case.

Having considered the same and the fact that the case has very recently been committed to the court of sessions and the date has been fixed for consideration of charges, at this, stage, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, CRM(M)93 of 2026 is rejected.

Report submitted by the Superintendent of Dum Dum Correctional Home be kept with the record.

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

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)