Court holds that mere custodial delay and temporary bench vacancies do not constitute fresh grounds for bail; Calcutta High Court reaffirms existing bail jurisprudence as binding authority
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/1071/2025 of SOURAV DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0322382025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | Suvra Ghosh, J. |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single-judge bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent in Calcutta High Court; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing bail jurisprudence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Bail) |
| Questions of Law | Whether absence of any change in circumstances since earlier bail rejection—including trial delay and bench vacancies—can justify grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 BNSS, 2023 |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that a bail application under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 BNSS, 2023 must be founded on fresh or materially changed circumstances. Mere custodial delay for nearly three years and temporary non-availability of the court do not amount to sufficient grounds. Since only seven out of twenty-six witnesses have been examined and no new facts have emerged, the bail prayer was correctly refused. An express direction was issued for the trial court to proceed expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Application of the settled principle that bail cannot be granted in absence of any new grounds; emphasis on continuity of trial and avoidance of undue interruption due to procedural vacancies |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner has been in custody for close to three years. Since earlier bail rejection on 13-02-2025 only one additional witness was examined. A total of seven out of twenty-six witnesses have been examined so far, and the court was temporarily vacant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail applications under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 BNSS, 2023 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reiterated that neither prolonged custody nor temporary bench vacancies alone constitute sufficient changed circumstances to interfere with the trial process by granting bail.
- Even after nearly three years of detention, without examination of a substantial portion of witnesses or emergence of new material facts, bail must be refused if earlier applications were dismissed in the absence of fresh grounds.
- Trial courts are explicitly directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to expedite trial proceedings once bail applications are disposed of.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Petitioner renewed bail prayer after nearly three years in custody; earlier application was rejected on 13-02-2025.
- Only one additional witness was examined post earlier rejection; cumulatively seven of twenty-six witnesses have testified.
- Court found no fresh or changed circumstances since the prior order—mere delay and bench vacancies are insufficient.
- Applying settled bail principles under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 BNSS, 2023, the application was again dismissed.
- Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Nearly three years’ custody and minimal progress in witness examination justify bail.
- Temporary non-availability of the court bench contributed to delay.
State
- No change in circumstances since the last order rejecting bail.
- Mere trial delay and bench vacancies do not warrant grant of bail.
Factual Background
The petitioner, accused in Chetla Police Station Case No. 65 of 2022, has been in custody since October 2022. His first bail application was rejected on 13-02-2025. Since then only one additional witness has been examined, bringing the total to seven out of twenty-six. The court bench was temporarily non-functional, further delaying proceedings. On 18-08-2025, the Calcutta High Court again refused bail for lack of fresh grounds and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Statutory Analysis
- Bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- No novel interpretation of these provisions was made; the court applied them according to settled principles requiring fresh grounds for bail beyond mere delay.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirmation of established bail jurisprudence under Section 439 CrPC.