Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32820 (CAL)

MOZAMMEL HOQUE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/12343/2026 · 2026-08-05

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

125 Ranajit (AR.CT) 05.08.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 12343 OF 2026 Dr. Mozammel Hoque -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dhananjay Banik, Mr. Jism Iqubal Hossain ….for the petitioner. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Ms. Suchitra Sinha Chatterjee ….for the State. 1. In terms of order dated 22nd June, 2026 a communication dated 8th July, 2026 of Inspector-in- Charge, Itahar Police Station, Raiganj Police District is filed today and same is taken on record. Copy of the communication dated 8th July, 2026 is made over to the learned advocate representing the petitioner. 2. It is disclosed in the communication dated 8th July, 2026 that police stations under Raiganj Police District were required to submit a report on threat perception of the petitioner in terms of Memo dated 1st July, 2026 of Superintendent of Police, Raiganj Police District and Radiogram/E-mail dated 2nd July, 2026. Such report on threat perception so far petitioner is concerned was necessary to ascertain whether petitioner needs assistance of personal security officer or not. 3. It is further disclosed from verification of available record no complaint or information regarding any recent threat perception so far petitioner is concerned subsists. 4. According to the State respondents on aforesaid exercise decision was taken to withdraw personal security officer which was previously provided to the petitioner. 5. Concerned police authorities have decided to withdraw personal security officer which was previously provided to the petitioner, Court taking note of the contents of communication dated 8th July, 2026 is not interfering with such decision since it reveals from the communication dated 8th July, 2026 that such decision will not cause imminent threat to the petitioner as it was assessed by the police authorities. 6. Hence present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 7. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 2