Calcutta High Court upholds established bail principles, binding on subordinate courts, affirming that overwhelming material and gravity of charges justify denial of bail under Section 483 BNS Sanhita
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM (M) 930 of 2025 of Bithi Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal |
| CNR | WBCHCA0288952025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 may be refused when there is overwhelming prima facie evidence and the trial has commenced for serious economic offences? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where the material on record establishes that the accused, along with the principal accused, duped an octogenarian through false representation and forged documents, and where a charge sheet has already been filed and trial has commenced, bail under Section 483 BNS Sanhita is not warranted. Given the nature and gravity of offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, and the prima facie involvement of the petitioner, continued detention is justified at this stage. The decision reaffirms that bail is not a matter of right where strong incriminating evidence exists and the accused’s release may prejudice the trial process. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner and her husband are accused of duping an octogenarian by falsely representing familial ties and producing a forged High Court order; funds transferred to the petitioner’s account were immediately redirected to her husband; the petitioner was identified in a T.I. parade; a supplementary charge sheet names her as principal accused; trial has commenced. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Bail under Section 483 BNS Sanhita can be denied despite the accused’s gender or marital status if overwhelming prima facie evidence exists.
- Use of forged court orders and false identity significantly undermines bail prospects.
- The court’s direction to expedite trial emphasizes the need for lawyers to prepare promptly for hearings once charges are framed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the material on record showing the petitioner’s active role in duping the victim through false representation.
- It noted the filing of a supplementary charge sheet and commencement of trial, indicating that investigation is complete.
- Given the seriousness and gravity of offences under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, bail is not a matter of right.
- The court concluded that prima facie involvement and risk to the trial process justified refusal of bail.
- A direction was issued to the trial court to expedite proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner is in custody for over five months and was unaware of her husband’s misdeeds.
- Amount transferred by husband into her account was returned on the same day.
- No anticipatory bail application was filed by her initially; the Court’s earlier rejection was on maintainability grounds.
- Investigation is complete; she will cooperate; further detention is unnecessary.
Respondent (State and Defacto Complainant)
- Petitioner, with her husband, duped an octogenarian on promise of legal help in property matters.
- A forged High Court order was shown to the complainant to mislead her.
- Petitioner assumed a false identity at the T.I. parade and was identified by the victim.
- Seriousness of offences and prima facie evidence warrant continued detention.
Factual Background
The petitioner, wife of the principal accused, was arrested in connection with an FIR alleging conspiracy and cheating of an elderly woman under multiple IPC sections. It is alleged that she falsely represented herself as the accused’s cousin, produced a forged High Court order, and facilitated transfer of large sums which were then diverted back to her husband. A supplementary charge sheet has been filed, and trial has commenced. The petitioner applied for bail under Section 483 BNS Sanhita, which was rejected.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 governs regular bail applications.
- The court applied the established test for bail, considering the nature and gravity of offences under IPC and the stage of trial.
- No expansion or “reading down” of the statutory provision was necessary; existing principles were reaffirmed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing bail jurisprudence affirmed by the court.