IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

C.R.R. 3582 of 2025

Md. Nishek Alam @ Nishek Alam & Anr.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the petitioners : Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Adv.

Ms. Shalini Bairagi, Adv.

Mr. Priyankar Ganguly, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.,

Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. A.P.P.,

Heard and Judgment on : September 25, 2025

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The instant criminal re visional application has been filed by the

accused petitioners being aggrieved by an order no. 12 dated August 2, 2025 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in connection with Sessions Case No. 131 of 2025.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court refused the prayer

of the petitioner challenging a charge under Section 317 (4) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, ‘B.N.S’.).

3. It is submitted on behalf of learned advocate for the petitioners

that the offence under Section 317 (4) of the B.N.S. relates to habitual offenders. The prosecution has not been able to bring any material in the case diary to substantiate that the petitioners were

habitual offenders. In spite of that, learned Trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners under Section 317 (4) of the B.N.S. Learned advocate for the petitioners refers to several Acts pertaining to different States including West Bengal in India where the term of habitual offender has been defined. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioners that for framing the charge against the petitioners under Section 317 (4) of the B.N.S., the prosecution ought to have brought materials to establish that the petitioners were previously convicted for similar nature of offences.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have misappropriated money in respect of some State Government Scheme. There are as many as eleven criminal cases involving similar nature of offences pending as against the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing the prayer of the petitioner as against the charge under Section 317 (4) of B.N.S.

5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the materials including the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioners are accused in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2025 under Sections 318(4)/316(2)/61(2)/317(4) of the B.N.S. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid Sections against the petitioners. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the petitioners. At the time of consideration of charge, the petitioners preferred an application seeking inter alia that no charge under Section 317 (4) of the B.N.S. could be framed as the prosecution was not in a position to bring materials substantiating such charge, specifically with regard to previous conviction of the accused in the similar nature of cases.

6. From the impugned order, it transpires that while disposing of the petition filed by the present petitioners, the learned Trial Court noted that the accused persons, forming a nexus, had tempted the young students of different schools of the State including the complainant school, in feeding their bank particulars in the fake portals. The learned Trial Court also observed that the petitioners and another accused person used different bogus IP addresses, enticed the students and misappropriated their monies from their bank accounts. Learned Trial Court also noted that several criminal cases were pending against the petitioners and another accused person, which involved similar nature of offences.

7. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court specifically held, at the time of deciding the petition filed by the appropriate application to the effect that, “the accused persons forming nexus withdrew the students‟ monies using different fake IPs, details of which are available in CD. They, there