Does the Calcutta High Court’s rejection of bail reaffirm the established principle that the nature and gravity of an offence and prima facie involvement justify denial of bail, and serve as binding authority for subordinate courts?
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM(M)/1079/2025 of Kazi Golam Khusbu Vs State of West Bengal |
| CNR | WBCHCA0324302025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | REJECTED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted when the offence attracts mandatory life imprisonment and the accused’s prima facie involvement is established |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where an offence, if proved, carries mandatory life imprisonment and there is prima facie evidence of the accused’s involvement, bail may be refused. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial (five out of twelve witnesses examined, two implicating the petitioner), the application was rejected. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The decision rested on the established discretionary principles under Section 439 CrPC and the corresponding power under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, emphasizing nature and gravity of the offence and prima facie involvement. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner has been in custody for nearly four years in connection with Uluberia PS Case No. 09/2021. Five out of twelve prosecution witnesses have been examined, two of whom have implicated the petitioner. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Trial courts under the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the record: petitioner in custody for almost four years; five of twelve witnesses examined; two implicating.
- Noted that the offence, if proved, attracts mandatory life imprisonment.
- Applied the discretionary standard under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 BNS Sanhita: nature and gravity of the offence and prima facie involvement justify refusal of bail.
- Rejected the bail application at this stage.
- Directed the trial court to expedite the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged presence only at the time of occurrence, not the principal assailant.
- Custody extended to nearly four years, seeking relief.
State
- Opposed bail on grounds of nature and gravity of the offence.
- Emphasized prima facie involvement and the mandatory sentence upon conviction.
Factual Background
The petitioner was arrested in Uluberia Police Station Case No. 09 of 2021 (FIR dated 11.01.2021) and has been in custody for almost four years. Five out of twelve prosecution witnesses have testified so far, with two implicating the petitioner. The offence carries mandatory life imprisonment if proved. A bail application under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was moved before the High Court and was rejected.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The court affirmed established discretionary principles for bail under Section 439 CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.