20.08.2026 Item No.13 Court No.01 KCP MAT 1362 of 2026 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 and IA No.CAN 2 of 2026 Dipan Ghosh - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudipto Maitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vijay Verma Mr. Steven S. Biswas Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas …. For the appellant Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Partha Chakraborty Ms. Sneha Chatterjee …. For the respondents Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 29th June, 2026 passed in a writ petition being WPA 13628 of 2026. Upon hearing Mr. Maitra, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant and Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondents and upon considering the materials on record, we are satisfied with the explanation given towards the delay in preferring the present appeal. Accordingly, such delay is condoned and the application for condonation of delay being CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. Records reveal that the said writ petition was preferred by the appellant primarily praying for 2 issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to transfer the investigation of the Serampore Police Station case no.174/2026 dated 24th March, 2026 from Serampore Police Station to either Deputy Inspector General of the Criminal Investigation Department or to any other impartial investigating agency which specializes in dealing with economic offences. Mr. Maitra strenuously argues that the nature and character of the offence reveals a deep rooted conspiracy having nationwide root and may be of international ramification. In view of such severity of the offence, the investigation needs to be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or to any other adequately equipped agency inasmuch as, till date there had been no substantive progress in investigation and there had been no sincere effort to seize materials which would be the basis of final report to be filled before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Mr. Maitra further contends that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there had been repeated and orchestrated attempts to commit similar offences at Serampore showroom which would demonstrate that the appellant’s business is under constant threat from an organized criminal network or racket. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the learned Single Judge and no finding was 3 returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Maitra and submits that there had been a substantive progress in investigation. The accused person has already been arrested and he is presently in judicial custody and that during investigation several deeds and documents along with bank statement of the accused and his wife have been collected which prima facie establishes that the accused person had wrongfully gained several immovable properties by disposing of stolen articles. In support of such contention, he has placed before this Court a written instruction dated 20th August, 2026 issued by the Inspector-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station. Let the same, as placed, be kept on record. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned Single Judge considered all the arguments as advanced on behalf of the appellant including the allegation that there had been no attempt to seize materials. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge also noted the stage of the investigation as placed on behalf of the State 4 respondents by a communication dated 22nd June, 2026. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and disclosing reasons, the learned Single Judge refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. A Court of Appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Needless to observe, steps would be taken towards conclusion of the investigation, as expeditiously as possible. The appeal being MAT 1362 of 2026 and its connected application for appropriate orders being CAN 2 of 2026 are, accordingly, disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)