29.05.2026 Sl. No. 44 Ct. No. 7 SG [REJECTED] C. R. M. (M) 1321 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sessions Case No. 204 of 2026 arising out of Madhyamgram Police Station Case No. 703 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025 under Sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (G.R. Case No. 1903 of 2023). And In Re: Tarak Roy alias Dipendra Roy. … … Petitioner Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S.S. Saha. … … for the petitioner Mr. Pradip Banerjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee. … … for the State 1. This is the renewal of bail prayer made by the petitioner. This Court earlier rejected the bail prayer of the petitioner on 10.02.2026. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier bail prayer was rejected on the ground that the case was not committed. Now the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and it is now pending for charge hearing. Prosecution proposes to examine 22 witnesses. Therefore, nobody knows when the trial would conclude and the petitioner may be granted bail on any terms and conditions as he is behind the bar since 08.09.2025. 3. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail prayer contending that sufficient incriminating materials have been collected against the present petitioner during investigation and 2 the allegation is serious in nature and as such if he is released on bail there is serious chance of his abscondence.

4. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State and after going through the materials collected by the investigating agency during investigation, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner stands rejected. 5. The application for bail being CRM (M) 1321 of 2026 is, thus, disposed of. 6. However, Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to make his best endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, keeping it in mind that the valuable right to speedy trial has been guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

29.05.2026 Sl. No. 44 Ct. No. 7 SG [REJECTED] C. R. M. (M) 1321 of 2026 In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Sessions Case No. 204 of 2026 arising out of Madhyamgram Police Station Case No. 703 of 2025 dated 08.09.2025 under Sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (G.R. Case No. 1903 of 2023). And In Re: Tarak Roy alias Dipendra Roy. … … Petitioner Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. S.S. Saha. … … for the petitioner Mr. Pradip Banerjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee. … … for the State 1. This is the renewal of bail prayer made by the petitioner. This Court earlier rejected the bail prayer of the petitioner on 10.02.2026. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier bail prayer was rejected on the ground that the case was not committed. Now the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and it is now pending for charge hearing. Prosecution proposes to examine 22 witnesses. Therefore, nobody knows when the trial would conclude and the petitioner may be granted bail on any terms and conditions as he is behind the bar since 08.09.2025. 3. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail prayer contending that sufficient incriminating materials have been collected against the present petitioner during investigation and 2 the allegation is serious in nature and as such if he is released on bail there is serious chance of his abscondence.

4. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State and after going through the materials collected by the investigating agency during investigation, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner stands rejected. 5. The application for bail being CRM (M) 1321 of 2026 is, thus, disposed of. 6. However, Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to make his best endeavour to conclude the trial preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, keeping it in mind that the valuable right to speedy trial has been guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)