SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 809

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JAY SENGUPTA, J.
Arjun Singh - Petitioner 
Versus 
State of West Bengal and Others - Respondents
C.R.R. 1510 of 2025, WPA 7369 of 2025 
Decided On : 24-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya, Ms. Sarmistha Basak, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Debasis Roy, Ld. PP Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ms. Sanjana Saha, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Akash Dutta, Mr. Arun Kumar Maiti (Mohanty), Mr. R. R. Mohanty

The court emphasized the necessity of adequate evidence linking the accused to the alleged crimes, dismissing the revisional application while allowing conditional anticipatory bail due to apparent mala fide actions against the petitioner.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 126(2), 117(2), 118(2), 109, 351(2), 3(5) - Arms Act - Sections 25, 27 - Quashing of FIR and counter case against petitioner - No sufficient ingredients found in FIR to justify prosecution - Allegations of mala fide and political vendetta against petitioner highlighted - Complaints made did not meet legal requirements for FIR registration. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 20, 27)

(B) Evidence - Reliance on CCTV footages and witness statements - Importance of establishing nexus between accused and alleged crime underscored - Contradicting statements from witnesses raise questions on credibility of accusations against petitioner. (Paras 10, 14, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR, arguing that it was filed with mala fide intent and lacked essential elements for prosecution. Allegations included political vendetta, with the petitioner claiming to be framed following a shift in political allegiance. Security personnel were present during the incident, and CCTV evidence was purportedly ignored by authorities. (Paras 1, 6, 19)

Findings of Court:
The investigation revealed deficiencies in the complaint against the petitioner, citing lack of credible allegations and evidence linking him directly to the crimes. Court opined that the proceeding, based on the context and contradictions of testimonies, would not be quashed at this stage. (Paras 18, 20, 28)

Issues: The court addressed whether sufficient evidence existed to hold the petitioner accountable and whether complaints met the statutory requirements for FIR registration. (Paras 9, 10, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that while there were indications of mala fide intentions behind the petitioner's persecution, the gravity of allegations necessitated further investigation, affirming that a prima facie case remains pending subject to trial. (Paras 6, 10, 18)

Result: Revisional application dismissed; petitioner's claims for anticipatory bail allowed for a six-week period.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and applications filed (Para 1)
2. petitioner claims political targeting and mala fide actions (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis of evidence and contradictions (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. court's conclusions on procedural and substantive issues (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. final decision on the criminal revision and writ petition (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

JAY SENGUPTA, J.

1. While CRR 1510 of 2025 is an application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking quashing of G.R. case No. 1909 of 2025 pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, arising out of Jagatdal PS Case No. 72 dated 27.03.2025 under Sections 126 (2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/351(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25 /27 of the Arms Act, WPA 7369 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner seeking direction upon the police station to register an First Information Report on his complaint dated 26.03.2025. As the two applications were inter connected and pertain to incidents that took place in the same transaction, the two matters were taken up hearing together.

2. Learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted and has relied on the written notes as follows. The revisional application has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the counter case registered against the petitioner and the mala fide manner in which the opposite parties have instituted the present case against the petitioner. It reflected the malevolent intention of the opposite party to malign the petitioner by entangling the petitioner in vexatious proceedings. The complaint was bereft of any ingredients of the allegations leveled against the petitioner under Section 126 (2)/117(2)/118(2)/109/351(2)/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 25 /27 of the Arms Act by the opposite parties. In the similar manner, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities for their action of non-registration of FIR upon the complaint made by the petitioner even when it disclosed cognizable offences. The genesis of the present case began with the incident that happened in the night of 25.03.2025 when two employees/ workers of Meghna jute mill, being Bitto Chowdhury and Md Rashid had a fight due to the political differences amongst themselves. Taking advantage of such fight, local goons reached the said spot. Subsequently, at 5.16 pm, Namit Singh along with his gang members and Md. Firoz arrived at the spot and started firing bullets at the jute mill, thereby targeting the employees and workers of the jute mill and also the house of the petitioner which was about 300 meters away from the said jute mill. They also started hurling bombs at the places in the vicinity of the house of the petitioner. Though the police authorities were present in the place of occurrence, no action was taken by them to curb such action. When the petitioner came to know about such an attack near his house, he came down with his CRPF personnel having Z category security. The petitioner was about to reach the place of occurrence when the miscreants fled away. The entire dispute between Bitto Chowdhury and Md Rashid was noted in a complaint made by Md. Hasim which was registered as FIR no. 71 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025 at 00.10 hours under section 126(2)/117(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against Bitto Chowdhury and Md Rashid. It became imperative to place on record that on 26.03.2025, at around 10.50pm, illegal and unlawful activities such as rounds of bullets were fired by a gang of miscreants near the office and residence of the petitioner, being at Majdoor Bhawan and near Meghna Jute Mill More. The identified persons in the said illegal activities were Saddam Hussain, Namit Singh, Prem, and other 40-50 persons, being members and supporters of the ruling dispensation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top