Ramesh Kumar Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

Ramesh Kumar Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted on 13.02.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Uluberia, to the accused persons (private opposite parties) in Uluberia Police Station case no. 51 of 2025 should be cancelled. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the present stage of the case, the fact that bail was granted on 13.02.2025 and the passage of time, no interference with the granted bail is called for; the application for cancellation of bail is disposed of accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

The learned court below is to ensure that persons disrupting the work and activity of the public sector undertaking are imposed conditions for not entering into the jurisdiction wherein operations were/are carried out by the concerned public sector undertaking.

Key takeaways

In case there are repeat offences, the petitioner (Ramesh Kumar Das) is to bring the same to the notice of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Uluberia, in seisin of Uluberia Police Station case no. 51 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cancellation-of-bail application (S.439(2) CrPC / S.483(3) BNSS 2023) by Ramesh Kumar Das against the bail granted on 13.02.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Uluberia, Howrah, to the accused (private opposite parties) in Uluberia Police Station case no. 51 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025 (u/Ss.315(2)/126(2)/351(2)/3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The petitioner contended that the accused had abducted Indian Oil Corporation guards amid a dispute over an underground pipeline for which compensation had been paid, and that the Sessions Judge, in granting bail, had regard only to the 14 days custody undergone; the State's report showed a charge-sheet had been filed, and counsel for the private respondents submitted there was no accusation of evading the process of law. Considering the stage of the case and the lapse of time, Tirthankar Ghosh, J. held (20.02.2026) that no interference was called for and disposed of the application, observing that any repeat offences be brought to the notice of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Uluberia, and that the court in seisin ensure that persons disrupting the public sector undertaking's work are imposed conditions barring entry into the jurisdiction of its operations.

20.02.2026 Court No.35. M/L.691. Rakib

CRM (DB) 882 of 2025

In Re: An Application for Cancellation of Bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Uluberia Police Station case no. 51 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025 under Sections 315(2)/126(2)/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

And In the matter of : Ramesh Kumar Das. ……Petitioner. Mr. Anirban Dutta Mrs. Sharmishtha Ghosh Mr. R. Ray ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Suman De Ms. Suchismita Dutta ……for the State. Ms. Aiswarja Gupta Mr. Kuntal Ray .....for the private respondents.

In the matter of : Ramesh Kumar Das.

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court, Uluberia, Howrah. It has been contended that the private opposite parties abducted the guards of Indian Oil Corporation. There is dispute in relation to the underground pipeline for which compensation has been paid to the private opposite parties. It has also been contended that the learned Sessions Judge while considering the application for bail ignored all the issues and was only satisfied that 14 days custody has been suffered by the accused persons.

2

Learned advocate for the State has submitted a report/status report which reflects that charge-sheet has already been submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

Learned advocate for the private opposite parties submits that there are no accusations to the effect that the private opposite parties have been evading the process of law.

Having considered the present stage of the case and the fact that bail was granted on 13.02.2025, I am of the view that in case there are repeat offences, petitioner would bring the same to the notice of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Court, Uluberia in seisin of Uluberia Police Station case no. 51 of 2025 dated 29.01.2025.

Learned Court under those circumstances would ensure that the persons who are disrupting the work and activity of the public sector undertaking be imposed conditions for not entering into the jurisdiction wherein operations were/are carried out by the concerned public sector undertaking.

At this stage with passage of time, I am of the opinion no interference is called for.

With the aforesaid observations, as such CRM (DB) 882 of 2025 is disposed of.

Report submitted by the State be kept with the record.

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

3

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

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)