24.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 32. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1170 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 366 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 under sections 3(5)/85/103(1) of the BNS read with sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. And In the matter of : Rohit Kumar Shaw @ Rohit Kr. Shaw ……Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya Ms. Anushka Bose ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sumit Routh …..for the defacto complainant. Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee ….for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for a year. Charges have been framed only under Section 85 and Section 108 of the BNS. Petitioner is the husband who is facing the trial and there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future. As such, petitioner be released on any stringent condition. Learned advocate for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report. Post-mortem report reflects about 21 injuries being inflicted on the person of the 2

deceased which led to the death of the victim. Although, the information of the post-mortem doctor is anti-mortem hanging but the manner in which the deceased was assaulted with a sharp weapon and the fact which has been pointed out by the learned advocate for the State that the other accused persons are absconding, I am of the view this is not a fit case for granting bail. Learned advocate for the informant has appeared and specifically taken up the issue that at the time of submission of the charge sheet, informant was not informed in respect of alteration of section and incorporation of diluted sections otherwise than which was mentioned at the stage of registration of the FIR. Having considered the issues aforesaid, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of CSW 1, CSW 12 and CSW 13 is over. Learned Trial Court is directed that immediately, after the evidence of CSW 1 is over, Court would fix date for evidence of CSW 12 and CSW 13. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidences are over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1170 of 2026 is dismissed at this stage. 3 All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

24.08.2026 Court No.35. D/L. 32. Kausik (Rejected) CRM (M) 1170 of 2026 In Re: An Application for Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 366 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 under sections 3(5)/85/103(1) of the BNS read with sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. And In the matter of : Rohit Kumar Shaw @ Rohit Kr. Shaw ……Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya Ms. Anushka Bose ……for the Petitioner. Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sumit Routh …..for the defacto complainant. Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharjee ….for the State. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for a year. Charges have been framed only under Section 85 and Section 108 of the BNS. Petitioner is the husband who is facing the trial and there is no possibility of the trial being concluded in near future. As such, petitioner be released on any stringent condition. Learned advocate for the State has drawn the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report. Post-mortem report reflects about 21 injuries being inflicted on the person of the 2

deceased which led to the death of the victim. Although, the information of the post-mortem doctor is anti-mortem hanging but the manner in which the deceased was assaulted with a sharp weapon and the fact which has been pointed out by the learned advocate for the State that the other accused persons are absconding, I am of the view this is not a fit case for granting bail. Learned advocate for the informant has appeared and specifically taken up the issue that at the time of submission of the charge sheet, informant was not informed in respect of alteration of section and incorporation of diluted sections otherwise than which was mentioned at the stage of registration of the FIR. Having considered the issues aforesaid, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidence of CSW 1, CSW 12 and CSW 13 is over. Learned Trial Court is directed that immediately, after the evidence of CSW 1 is over, Court would fix date for evidence of CSW 12 and CSW 13. Petitioner will renew his prayer for bail after the evidences are over. Accordingly, CRM (M) 1170 of 2026 is dismissed at this stage. 3 All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)