Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29091 (CAL)

CHIRANJIT GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRR/2448/2026 · 2026-07-20

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

20.07.2026 Serial no. 29 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29 CRR 2448 of 2026 CHIRANJIT GHOSH -VS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Mr. Dipendu Sarkar, Ms. Deblina De, Advocates … … For the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P., Mr. Imran Siddiqui, Advocate ……For the State. Mr. Ankan Das, Ms. Payel Das, Advocates …….For the Private Opposite Party. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved by the Order No. 37 dated 15.06.2026 by which the Court below rejected the petitioner’s prayer for recalling P.W. 6 and 7 to put five questions by way of cross-examination which are mentioned in the application dated 05.03.2026. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in observing that the questions are repetitive which is not correct. He further submits that the said questions are vital for adjudication of the issue and if such questions are not allowed to be put to the said two witnesses, then the accused persons will have serious cause to prejudice. 2 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party raised objection contending that several opportunities were given to the petitioner during cross-examination but as he did not avail such opportunities the Court below was justified in closing the evidence of said two witnesses, so that further delay may not be caused in concluding the trial. Therefore, the order impugned does not call for interference by this Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State leaves the prayer made by the petitioner to the discretion of the Court. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and both the opposite parties and after going through the questions that are proposed to be put to P.W. 6 and 7, I find that for securing the ends of justice, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 6. In view of above, the instant application being CRR/2448/2026 is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to put only those five questions mentioned in the petition of complaint dated 5th March, 2026 to P.W. 6 and 7 by way of cross-examination on the next date, i.e., on 21.09.2026 or within a period of 15 days thereafter. The order dated 15.06.2026 thus stands set aside. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)