A.RAMA SUBRAMANIYAN vs THE STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]
*

CRM(M)/3/2026

In Re: An application for bail under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in
connection with Diglipur Police Station Case No.24
of 2025 dated 01.04.2025 under Sections
103(1)/61(2)/238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023

A. Rama Subramaniyan

Vs

The State

Mr. D.Ilango … for the petitioner

Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar … for the State
April 23, 2026
[SR]
Item No.3
1. The present petitioner is one of the co-accused in a
charge, inter alia, of murder.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
there are 84 witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet as
well as 14 in the supplementary charge sheet, out of whom
only one witness has been examined till date. That apart,
for the last seven months, due to various reasons, not even
a single prosecution witness could be examined in the
trial.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is already in
custody for 1 year and 20 days and is not one of the prime
accused. In fact, it is submitted that the primary accused
has died in judicial custody.

2

4. Learned counsel further submits, by placing reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India and another [SLP (Crl.)
Nos.3326 of 2026] , that if the Constitutional mandate of
informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is not
complied with, the arrest and subsequent remand would
be rendered illegal and the person would be at liberty to be
set free.
5. In such view of the matter, it is submitted that since
the end of the trial is not in sight and in view of the
contravention of the aforesaid Constitutional mandate, the
petitioner should be set free on bail, if necessary, by
imposing stringent conditions.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the
prayer for bail and submits that the gravity of the offence
and the heinous nature of the crime cannot be denied. The
charge is that of the murder of a 35-year-old reporter who
was brutally assaulted and thereafter killed and the corpse
was concealed and subsequently burnt.
7. It is further submitted that the prosecution
apprehends that if let free, the petitioner has every
possibility of influencing witnesses and tampering with
evidence.
8. It transpires from the submission of the parties and
copies of two applications which have been produced by

3

learned counsel for the petitioner for the perusal of the
Court, that at present both the charge sheet and
supplementary charge sheet have already been filed upon
completion of the investigation. The two applications at the
behest of the prosecution are pending respectively for
necessary permission to take photograph of all four
accused persons who are currently in judicial custody and
for taking their voice samples.
9. Although the petitioner is one of such accused
persons and an allegation of conspiracy petitioner has
been levelled in the charge sheet and supplementary
charge sheet, fact remains that following principle
reiterated in Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra), in view of non-
compliance of the Constitutional mandate of informing the
petitioner of the grounds of his arrest, the petitioner is
otherwise entitled to be set free, since the process of arrest
and subsequent remand was vitiated by such non-
compliance.
10. In Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also took into consideration the judgment of Mihir
Rajesh Saha vs. State of Maharashtra and Another ,
reported at (2026) 1 SCC 500 , where it was laid down that
non-compliance of the Constitutional mandate of informing
the arrestee the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest and

4

subsequent remand and renders the same illegal, entitling
the person arrested to be at liberty to set free.
11. Even otherwise, there is serious apprehension that
the trial will take an inordinately long time to be concluded
since, out of the 84 charge sheeted witnesses and 14
witnesses mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet,
only one has been examined as yet and for the last seven
months, for various reasons, no witness could be
examined.
12. The petitioner is already in custody for 1 year and 20
days. As the investigation has already been completed, no
useful purpose will be served in retaining the petitioner
behind the bar.
13. However, the Court is not unmindful of the gravity
and heinous nature of the offence as well as the fact that
the photograph and voice sample of the petitioner is
required to be taken and that the possibility of the
petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with
evidence has to be prevented. Such purpose, however, can
be sub-served even without keeping the petitioner
incarcerated further, by imposing stringent conditions of
bail.
14. In such view of the matter, CRM(M)/9/2026 is
allowed, thereby granting bail to the petitioner on
condition that the petitioner furnishes bond of Rs.10,000/-

5

(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of like
amount each, one of whom must be local, subject to the
satisfaction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mayabunder and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction
of the South Andaman District throughout the period of
trial without prior leave of the jurisdictional Court.
15. In any event, with or without such leave, the
petitioner shall not enter into the territorial jurisdiction of
the North and Middle Andaman District throughout the
period of trial and/or attempt to contact the witnesses or
tampering the evidence in any manner whatsoever.
16. Furthermore, the petitioner shall report to the
Aberdeen Police Station every alternate day during the
period of trial and shall make himself available, as and
when required, for the purpose of recording his voice
sample and taking his photograph, if not already done.
17. It is further stipulated that, if so called upon to do by
the Trial Court, the petitioner shall attend the trial, in
which the case, during the short period when the
petitioner shall attend such trial, the petitioner shall report
to the local police station closest to the Trial Court.


(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)