23.12.2025 SL No. 62 Court No. 446 Rohan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRR 3557 of 2025 Ekbal Hossain @ Abu @ Ikbal Hossain & Anr.

Versus The State of West Bengal Mr. Sanat Kr. Das, Mr. Sujan Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan Bavishi.

… for the Petitioners Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Mr. Abhinaba Mukherjee.

… for the State

1. This revisional application has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 5th July, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bolpur, Birbhum in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2024 arising out of Labpur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2017 dated 6.4.2017 under Sections 341/342/346/347/329/364/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). By the said order, the petition preferred by the accused person, namely, Aloke Das @ Bappa, seeking supply of certain copies of documents referred to in the charge-sheet, was rejected on the basis of the submission advanced on behalf of the prosecution that all the required documents had already been supplied to all the accused persons, including Aloke Das @ Bappa.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the petition presented before the learned Court below, it was specifically averred that the documents referred to at serial Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in column No. 9 of the charge-sheet had not been supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that although the case was initiated under Sections 364/302 along with certain other provisions of the IPC, the body of the victim could not be traced; nevertheless, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and is now being compelled to face the trial.

3. He further submits that there was no prior acquaintance between the victim and the present petitioner and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, in order to enable the petitioner to defend himself effectively, the said documents are required to be supplied to him. He also submits that very recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a decision reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353 (Manoj and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), ruled that every document which the prosecution seeks to rely upon, as well as all documents collected during investigation by the investigating agency, are required to be supplied to the accused persons in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, prays for a direction upon the prosecution to supply the documents referred to hereinabove to the accused persons.

4. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate representing the State, submits that although upon completion of the investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted, the investigating agency retains certain documents for the purpose of further investigation and with the intention of producing the same at the time of trial. He further submits that, if so directed by the Court, such documents would be supplied to the present accused persons.

5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

6. To shed light on the issue raised in the revisional application, it would be apposite to quote the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is as follows: -

“207. Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.—In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;

(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section

173;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistra