IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH W.P.A. No. 9324 of 2025 Kamala Chakraborty -Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Bhattacharyya, Adv., Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv, Ms. Anoushka Das, Adv, For the State : Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Swapan Banerjee, AGP Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. St. Counsel Mrs. Sabnam De Bardhan, Jr. Govt. Adv.

Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv, Mr. Diptendu Narayan Bandopadhyay, Adv, Mrs. Kakali Naskar, Adv.

Heard On : 22.05.2025 Judgement On : 09.06.2025 Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

The present writ petition has been preferred by the mother of one Abhijit Chakroborty who was arrested in connection with Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 21 dated 12.02.2025 under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner’s main contention is that the accused was arrested on 19th April, 2025 by the Officers of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station in front of Kasba Police Station. After being arrested accused was handed over with an arrest-inspection memo, however, none of his relatives were informed regarding his arrest and the grounds of arrest which was handed over to him were in gross violation of the settled proposition of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It was further complained that the accused was subjected to physical assault in custody which resulted in his injuries and in spite of furnishing all the information by way of a petition before the Learned ACJM, Bidhannagar on 28^th April, 2025 the Learned Magistrate ignored the same and rejected the application for bail of the accused Abhijit Chakroborty. Petitioner therefore prayed that the arrest of the accused be considered as illegal and in violation of the established law. Further a prayer was advanced for issuing show cause against the Respondent No. 6, being the Investigating Officer of the case relating to the custodial torture inflicted by him which is in violation of the constitutional mandate.

In order to substantiate his contention, Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Pankaj Bansal -versus- Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 and referred to paragraphs

20, 38, 42, 43, 45 which reads as follows:

“20. Dealing with the interplay between Section 19 PMLA and Section 167CrPC, this Court observed in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] that the Magistrate is expected to do a balancing act as the investigation is to be completed within 24 hours as a matter of rule and, therefore, it is for the investigating agency to satisfy the Magistrate with adequate material on the need for custody of the accused. It was pointed out that this important factor is to be kept in mind by the Magistrate while passing the judicial order. This Court reiterated that Section 19 PMLA, supplemented by Section 167CrPC, provided adequate safeguards to an arrested person as the Magistrate has a distinct role to play when a remand is made of an accused person to an authority under the 2002 Act. It was held that the Magistrate is under a bounden duty to see to it that Section 19 PMLA is duly complied with and any failure would entitle the arrestee to get released. It was pointed out that Section 167CrPC is meant to give effect to Section 19 PMLA and, therefore, it is for the Magistrate to satisfy himself of its due compliance by perusing the order passed by the authority under Section 19(1) PMLA and only upon such satisfaction, the Magistrate can consider the request for custody in favour of an authority. To put it otherwise, per this Court, the Magistrate is the appropriate authority who has to be satisfied about the compliance with safeguards as mandated under Section 19 PMLA. In conclusion, this Court summed up that any non- compliance with the mandate of Section 19 PMLA, would enure to the benefit of the person arrested and the court would have power to initi