Prosecutorial control over witness selection is based on bona fide discretion. Furthermore, witness recall and the declaration of witness hostility at any trial stage are essential judicial tools that must be exercised liberally to ensure discovery of truth and fairness in complex criminal adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.

1. Three revisional applications, specifically CRR 2880 of 2023 (Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), CRR 464 of 2025 (Dipak Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.) and CRR 473 of 2026 (The State of West Bengal vs. Anisur Rahaman & Ors.) have been instituted by the respective petitioners seeking to challenge various interlocutory orders. All such orders were passed in connection with Sessions Case No. 23 of 2023, which is currently pending adjudication before the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta. The said Sessions Court proceedings arose out of Panskura Police Station Case No. 495 of 2019, dated 08.01.2019.

2. As the aforementioned matters pertain to the identical criminal trial, i.e., Sessions Case No. 23 of 2023, and implicate various orders rendered by the same Learned Trial Judge which are under active challenge and possess a direct bearing upon the trial of the instant prosecution, it has been deemed expedient to consider the same concurrently.

3. Prior to addressing the substantive merits of each revisional application, this Court deems it necessary to examine the chronological background of the instant criminal proceeding and the matrix of the admitted facts, which emerge from the diverse orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such factual antecedents are requisite for the proprio motu exercise of judicial powers and the proper adjudication of these three revisional applications.

A. On 08.01.2019, Panskura Police Station Case No. 495 of 2019 was instituted under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against various accused persons by the complainant, Jahar Sha.

B. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency filed a Charge Sheet in the year 2020 under Sections 302/120B of the IPC and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against ten accused persons.

C. During the pendency of the trial, while the recording of testimonial evidence was in progress, the State of West Bengal issued a notification under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the withdrawal of prosecution. This notification was subsequently challenged by Jahar Sha before this Court via Writ Petition Appeal (WPA) No. 6315 of 2021.

D. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Learned Trial Judge, by judgment and order dated 02.03.2021, allowed the application under Section 321 CrPC and acquitted the accused persons on the grounds that the prosecution had been duly withdrawn.

E. On the very same day, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which was seised of WPA 6315 of 2021, quashed the notification issued under Section 321 CrPC.

F. In an appeal filed before the Division Bench against the order passed in WPA 6315 of 2021, the Division Bench, without adjudication of the merits, by order dated 13.04.2021, remanded the matter before the Learned Single Judge on a technical ground that one accused person was denied an opportunity of hearing. In clarifying the procedural posture, the Division Bench directed that the legal status existing at the time the Learned Single Judge passed the aforementioned order shall continue.

G. Following the remand, during the hearing of WPA 6315 of 2021, Jahar Sha, the de facto complainant, sought to withdraw the writ petition alleging undue pressure. At that juncture, Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat Sha, the brother of the deceased, filed an application to be transposed as the sole writ petitioner to continue proceedings. By order dated 28.04.2021, the Learned Single Judge acceded to this prayer. This order was assailed in an Intra Court Appeal filed before the Division Bench in MAT 550 of 2021, wherein the transposition was upheld. It is acknowledged that the Division Bench order effecting the transposition remained unchallenged and is thus final.