18.02.2026 Ct. No.42 D/L 78 Mujahid CRR 345 of 2026 Jagadish Paul Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Debyendu Chatterjee Mr. Rahul Deb Goenka Ms. Satabdi Das Mr. Mainak Singha Barma Ms. Sunanda Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr. Soumik Ghosh Mr. Pradip Saren Ms. Saheli Hembram …for the opposite party Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Ld. APP Ms. Amita Gaur Mr. Bitasok Banerjee …for the State

1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28^th November, 2025 passed by the learned Special Court (POCSO), Rampurhat, Birbhum whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of PW-8, PW-18, PW-19, PW-24 and PW-25 has been dismissed by the learned trial court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial court has dismissed the application without going into the factual matrix of their case. Learned counsel submits that re- examination of the afore-mentioned prosecution witnesses, is necessary for the effective disposal of the trial and essential for the just decision of this case. Learned counsel further submits that earlier witnesses were not properly cross-examined by the learned defence counsel. It has further been submitted that it is a serious case in which the petitioners are facing trial for the alleged grave offences under the BNSS as well as the POCSO. Learned counsel has further submitted that it has also come on the record, earlier several times that there had been immense pressure on the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the grounds on which the application has been dismissed by the learned trial court is not sustainable and, therefore, the same may be set aside and the witnesses, PW-8, PW-18, PW-19, PW- 24 and PW-25 be recalled for the purpose of further cross-

examination.

3. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rajesh Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 SCC OnLIne Cal 510, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 762. Learned counsel submits that in this case the Apex Court inter alia held that the exercise for recalling of the witness as provided under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the accused or the Court and the Court has to remain sensitive to the cause of justice. Learned counsel submits that it was further inter alia held that the Court while dealing with such an issue has to maintain the balance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Unnion of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346.

Learned counsel submits that bare perusal of the legislative provisions makes it clear that if the re-examination of a witness is essential to the just decision of the case, it is a mandatory obligation imposed on the Court to recall such witness for the purpose of further examination/re-examination.

5. The written notes of argument have also been filed and the same have been taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application for the resent revision petition and submits that the same is liable to be dismissed, out rightly. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that initially the application was moved for recalling of PW-8 and PW-18 and subsequently PW-19, PW-24 and PW-25 were added by hand. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the entire application, there is no sufficient grounds for mentioned recalling of these witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the intention of the petitioner is only to delay the trial. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that initially the petitioner herein moved a writ petition in WPA 19347 of 2025 for the transfer of the trial. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29^th December, 2025 declined to pass any interim order in the said writ petition.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that therefore Manoj Kumar Paul, i.e. the brother of the petitioner and only accused in the case, mo