Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Calcutta High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. October

Dipankar Biswas and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal

Decided on 30 October 2024• Citation: CRM (DB)/3127/2024• Calcutta High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


       5    30.10.2024                                                              
       ss/jks                                                                       
       rejected                                                                     
                                         CRM  (DB) 3127 of 2024                     
                       In the matter of : An application for bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya
                            Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of
                            the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) in connection with Ranaghat
                            G.R.P.S. Case No. 9 of 2021 dated 27.06.2021 under Sections
                            302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
                            Act.                                                    
                                                 And                                
                       In the matter of : Dipankar Biswas & Anr.                    
                       Mr. Chitrak Biswas                                           
                                                              … … for the petitioners
                       Mr. Arijit Ganguly                                           
                       Mr. Habib Hossain                                            
                                                                  … … for the State 
                            Mr. Biswas, learned advocate representing the petitioners, submits
                       that the charge sheet has been submitted. The petitioners have been
                       languishing in jail custody for a prolonged period. He argues that further
                       detention of the petitioner will not serve any purpose. He submits, in light
                       of this situation, bail be granted to the petitioners.       
                            The learned advocate representing the State produces the case diary
                       and vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. Based on the materials
                       available in the case diary, he submits that there is direct involvement of
                       the present petitioners in the alleged offense. He also submits that the
                       prayer for bail from the co-accused persons have been denied by different
                       coordinate benches of this Court.                            
                            Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the case diary and
                       other materials available on record.                         
                            The post-mortem report indicates that the victim died from bullet
                       injuries. The statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 as

                                                   2                                
                       well as Section 164 of the Code, point to the presence of the petitioner at
                       the scene of the occurrence.                                 
                            In this context, upon assessing the roles attributed to the petitioners
                       and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, as well as the extent
                       of the petitioners' complicity in the alleged crime, and noting that the bail
                       applications of co-accused persons, who stand on the same footing, have
                       been denied by different coordinate benches of this Court, we are of the
                       view that the petitioners cannot be admitted to bail at this stage. Hence,
                       their prayer for bail is rejected.                           
                            Accordingly, the application being CRM (DB) 3127 of 2024 stands
                       dismissed at this stage.                                     
                       (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)