21.01.2026 Sl. No.24-26.

D/L.

Mithun.

Ct.No.29.

CRR/3591/2025 Atin Singh & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

With CR R / 3 5 9 2 / 2 0 2 5 Shantanu Singh @ Singha & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

With CRR/3621/2025 Atin Singh @ Singha & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Arkaprabho Roy …for the petitioners in CRR 3591 of 2025 Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Mr. Soujanyo Pattanayak …for the petitioners in CRR 3592 of 2025 Mr. Arkaprabho Roy …for the petitioners in CRR 3621 of 2025 Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP, Mr. Debadrita Mandal …for the State in CRR 3591 of 2025 Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP, Ms. Sujata Das …for the State in CRR 3592 of 2025 Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld. APP, Ms. Ayana De …for the State in CRR 3621 of 2025 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is evident from the complaint that Khatra Police Station Case No.46 of 2025, 47 of 2025, 48 of 2025 and 49 of 2025 have arisen in connection with series of connected incidents forming part of the same transaction, which allegedly took place on 13.06.2025 approximately in between 8 pm to 9 pm in and around Karali More, allegedly committed by the common accused persons.

Being aggrieved by the multiple FIRs and criminal cases, over self-

same occurrence learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the subsequent three criminal cases ( corresponding to instant applications being CRR 3591 of 2025, CRR 3592 of 2025 and CRR 3621 of 2025) cannot be allowed to continue in connection with same incident and, therefore, further continuance of Khatra Police Station Case No.47/2025, 48/2025 and 49/2025 would amount to abuse of the process of law as it also violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which prohibits double Jeopardy.

He further submits that receipt of every subsequent information in respect of self-same cognizable offences cannot give rise to fresh investigation. In this context, he relied upon Paragraphs 19 and 20 of T.T.Antory Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Paragraphs 20-21 of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254.

He further submits that when more information in connection with the same occurrence is given, involving the same cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer need not start separate FIR in connection with the same incident and, thereby, such statement cannot be treated as separate FIR.

Learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Madhusudan Sur submits that on perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that the subsequent cases being Khatra Police Station Case No.47 of 2025, 48 of 2025 and 49 of 2025 are the series of incidents in connection with the original complaint being Khatra Police Station Case No.46 of 2025. It further appears that Investigating Officer of Khatra P.S. Case No.46/2025 admitted that regarding the incidents on 13.06.2025 created by the accused persons of Khatra P.S. Case No.46/2025, three additional cases were initiated. Since they are the incidents of same transaction of events, therefore, the proceeding arising out of later three FIRs should be merged with the original FIR being Khatra Police Station Case No.46 of 2025.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State, it appears that all the aforesaid three cases being Khatra Police Station Case No.47 of 2025, 48 of 2025 and 49 of 2025 have close proximity of time and place of the occurrence which are one kilometre South to the Khatra Police Station. In fact, Khatra Police Station Case No.47 of 2025 and 49 of 2025 was initiated against the same accused persons who are Suraj @ Bapon Lai, Choton Singha and Raja Sardar. Five accused persons were arrested on the spot in connection with Khatra Police Station Case No.46 of 2025 who were also shown arrested in Khatra Police Station Case No.47 of 2025 vide learned Court’s order dated 17.06.2025. The petitioners of CRR 3592 of 2025 arising out of Khatra Police Station Case NO.48 of 2025 are also the accused in connection with Khatra Police Station Case No.46 of 2025. Applying