A vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court has declined to grant urgent relief in a writ petition filed by Susmita Ghosh, who sought judicial protection for her husband, Sumit Roy, amid serious allegations of threats of a "fake encounter" while in police custody. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate Regular Bench for consideration once the court reopens, effectively deferring a decision on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.

The petition, filed under the apprehension of extrajudicial violence, alleged that Roy was being coerced by law enforcement to provide a false confession. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that authorities were pressuring her husband to admit that he had stored approximately ₹1.02 crore in cash at a location previously linked to the Trinamool Congress in Diamond Harbour. According to the filing, Roy was transported to these premises, where he was allegedly made to witness police officials organizing and counting large bundles of currency.

The petition detailed a disturbing account of these events, asserting that Roy was forced to pose in front of the recovered cash while wearing a black mask. This, the petitioner argued, occurred shortly before the Additional Superintendent of Police (Zonal) conducted a press conference to formally announce the seizure. The plea characterized these ongoing criminal proceedings as a calculated effort driven by political vendetta following the change in the West Bengal government on May 4, with the ultimate objective of implicating Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee.

Seeking immediate intervention, the petitioner had requested the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprised of independent officers, with the entire process to be placed under the supervision of a retired judge of the Calcutta High Court.

During the brief hearing, the state was represented by Advocate General S.N. Mitra. The state maintained that there was no immediate requirement for the court to grant the urgent protections sought, noting that Roy is currently in lawful custody and that the investigation is actively ongoing. In light of the submissions made by both parties, the court opted to maintain the status quo until the regular judiciary returns.

The denial of urgent relief highlights the stringent threshold for seeking extraordinary judicial intervention in active criminal investigations. By referring the matter to the Regular Bench, the court has signaled that the allegations regarding custodial safety will be subjected to the standard judicial process rather than being resolved through urgent, vacation-period extraordinary jurisdiction.

For now, the legal proceedings remain pending. The petitioner’s demand for an independent, court-monitored investigation into the conduct of the police officers involved and the integrity of the seizure remains a live issue. The resolution of these grievances will now await the resumption of regular judicial sittings, where the bench will have the opportunity to evaluate the evidentiary basis for the petitioner’s claims and the state’s response regarding the custodial conditions of the accused. The current position is that the matter is adjourned pending its appearance before the Regular Bench, leaving the specific allegations of procedural misconduct and the threat of a fake encounter to be addressed during the subsequent phases of the ongoing litigation.