14 2233..0077..22002266 Ct. No. 05 adeb WPA 16305 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rishad Medora Mr. S. Lahiri Mr. Debraj Dutta Ms. Nivedita Mullick Ms. Priyanka Mitra …for the petitioner Mr. Suryaneel Das Mr. Abhik Sarkar …for the State Mr. Wrickbrata Roy Mr. Iswar Das …for the respondent no. 5 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Matter is heard in presence of the learned advocate representing petitioner, State respondents and respondent no. 5. 3. A queer case is made out by the petitioner seeking direction upon the concerned police authorities that investigation may be carried out including preliminary enquiry in connection with the complaint lodged against the petitioner at the instance of investigating authorities, but prior to taking steps if found necessary against the petitioner, petitioner needs to be informed accordingly. 2 4. However, there is no prayer couched in this writ petition seeking quashment of the criminal prosecutions initiated. 5. Under relevant provisions of BNSS 2023, if complaints are lodged against the petitioner it is the prerogative of the police authorities/investigating agencies to take steps and to decide whether investigation is to be conducted or not upon registering FIR. 6. If investigations are continuing against the petitioner in connection with criminal prosecutions, investigating agencies are free to take all necessary steps in accordance with law to take forward those investigations to its logical conclusion. At this stage of the proceedings writ court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to decide whether allegations made against the petitioner are correct or not. 7. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 (Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and Others), paragraph 33.16 of Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) runs infra:- “33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of 3 powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 8. In consideration of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) petitioner shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum seeking pre arrest bail. 9. Hence, present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)