25 Ranajit (AR.CT) 13.08.2026 Ct.05 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO 19191 OF 2026 Gopal Chandra Sahu -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Soumya Nag, Mr. Rajdeep Sengupta ….for the petitioner. Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Ms. Sagnika Banerjee ….for the respondent no.7. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Mr. Partha Banerjee, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee ….for the State. 1. Matter is heard in presence of the learned advocates representing petitioner, respondent no.7 and State respondents. 2. It is contended by the learned advocate representing petitioner that investigation in Kolaghat Police Station Case No.303/2026 dated 17th May, 2026 needs to be relegated to another agency for appropriate investigation. It is also submitted that orders passed by jurisdictional Magistrate on 19th May, 2026 and 27th May, 2026 do not operate as fetter in appreciating such prayer of petitioner seeking transfer of investigation. 3. According to petitioner, allegations are grave requiring proper investigation and there is lackadaisical approach on the part of the concerned police authorities. 4. Respondent no.7 is represented by Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate who has opposed this writ petition based on those two orders dated 19th May, 2026 and 27th May, 2026 passed by jurisdictional Magistrate on an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023. 5. Having perused orders dated 19th May, 2026 and 27th May, 2026 passed by jurisdictional Magistrate, it appears that different prayer was made before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking addition of other rigorous provisions. 6. It is pointed out that it was not within the domain of jurisdictional Magistrate to consider prayer for transfer of investigation to another agency as a result whereof such prayer for transfer of investigation to another agency was not raised before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. However, vide order dated 27th May, 2026 jurisdictional Magistrate allowed prayer of the petitioner thereby directing the concerned investigating officer to add Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 in aforesaid criminal prosecution. 8. State respondents are represented by learned advocates. 9. From facts narrated by learned advocates, it transpires that first petitioner approached jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 seeking certain reliefs including addition of rigorous section. When prayer of the petitioner for addition of rigorous section was allowed thereby directing the 2 concerned police authorities to add Section 316(5) in the aforesaid criminal prosecution, present writ petition is filed seeking direction for transfer of the investigation to another agency. Such conduct of the petitioner ought not to be countenanced and it appears to be afterthought. 10. Petitioner availed remedy under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 and got relief by direction relating to addition of rigorous section. After Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023 was fastened so far aforesaid criminal prosecution is concerned a new prayer is made by presenting this writ petition seeking direction for transfer of investigation. Conduct of the petitioner raises question. 11. Hence, present writ petition is not entertained and same stands dismissed. . 12. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 3