19.08.2026 Item no. 23 Ct. No.237 AKG C.R.R. 3344 of 2026 State of West Bengal Vs. Subidali @ Jhoro Dhali Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P. P. Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, Mr. Pritam Roy, Mr. Anamitra Banerjee …for the Petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv Mr. Rajdeep Sengupta …for the Opposite Party The facts involved in the present case have been narrated in the order dated August 10, 2026. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow: “A challenge has been made to the order dated August 3, 2026, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, in connection with BGR Case No. 4414 of 2026, arising out of Gosaba Police Station Case No. 295 of 2026 dated July 26, 2026, under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was in police custody in connection with Gosaba Police Station Case No. 293 of 2026 dated July 19, 2026, under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 64(2)(m), 61(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. By an order dated July 27, 2026, the Learned Magistrate remanded the opposite party to judicial custody until August 10, 2026, in connection with Gosaba Police Station case no.295 of 2026. Thereafter, on July 30, 2026, the Investigating Agency made a prayer before the Learned Magistrate for issuance of a production warrant in connection with the said case. The said prayer was allowed by the Learned Magistrate, with a direction upon the Baruipur Central Correctional Home to produce the opposite party before him on August 3, 2026. Challenging the order dated July 27, 2026, the opposite party thereafter preferred Criminal 2 Motion No. 270 of 2026 before the Learned Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas. In connection with the said proceeding, an application was filed seeking a stay of the operation of the order dated July 30, 2026, passed by the Learned Magistrate. Upon consideration thereof, the Learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated August 3, 2026. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereinbelow: “Considering the facts and circumstances and the urgency pleaded by the Ld. Advocate, as also having regard to the materials on record and the order sheet filed, I am not inclined to grant any order of stay of the order dated 30.07.2026 at this stage. However, Learned Trial Court is directed that any application praying for police custody on the basis of the order dated 30.07.2026 shall not be taken into consideration until further order. To 13-08-2026 for SR or notice. Issue notice upon the opposite parties. Requisites at once. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Ld. Trial Court at once.” In view of the aforesaid order of the Learned Sessions Judge, the Learned Magistrate kept the prayer for production warrant in abeyance on August 3, 2026. As noted hereinabove, the impugned order declines to stay the operation of the order dated July 30, 2026, passed by the Learned Magistrate. However, the reasons for restraining the Learned Magistrate from considering the prayer of the Investigating Agency for issuance of production warrant are not apparent from the impugned order. The said order is, therefore, a non-speaking order. The Learned Public Prosecutor submits before this Court that, by reason of the order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, the Investigating Agency has been unable to interrogate the petitioner in connection with Gosaba Police Station Case No. 295 of 2026. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I stay the operation of the order dated August 3, 2026, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, South 24 3 Parganas, in Criminal Motion No. 270 of 2026, for a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Let a copy of the application be served upon the opposite party, with an intimation that the matter shall be listed for hearing after one week under the heading “To Be Mentioned”. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of service on the next date fixed for hearing.” Today, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party, submits that, in view of the order dated August 10, 2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Bengal), I/C, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, declined to consider the bail prayer of the petitioner in connection with Gosaba Police Station Case No. 295 of 2026. I find no justification for the learned Magistrate’s refusal to consider the bail prayer of the petitioner. The operation of the order dated August 3, 2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Motion No. 270 of 2026, was stayed by this Court for a period of two weeks from the date of the said order. Such stay did not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the bail prayer of the petitioner. Mr. Mondal, learned Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the Investigating Agency shall make a prayer before the learned Magistrate for police custody of the petitioner in connection with the said case. Accordingly, I direct the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider, in accordance with law, the prayer for bail made by the petitioner as well as the prayer, if any, made by the Investigating Agency for police custody, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Mr. Bhattacharyya submits before this Court that the petitioner is not willing to proceed further with Criminal Motion No. 270 of 2026. 4 In view of the aforesaid submission, Criminal Motion No. 270 of 2026, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas is also disposed of. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall remain at liberty to agitate all the points available to him before the learned Magistrate in the Court below. Accordingly, CRR 3344 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)